Preamble

The House met at a Quarter before Three of the Clock, Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair.

NATIONAL DEBT.

Return ordered, "showing for each financial year commencing the 1st day of April from 1875 to 1920, inclusive:—

(1) The total amount of dead-weight Debt outstanding on the 1st day of April; the amounts which were made available in each year to 1919–20, inclusive, for reduction of Debt, distinguishing the sums expressly provided for service of the Debt, the Old Sinking Fund, and miscellaneous receipts; the gross amount of Debt redeemed; the amount of Debt created t and the net increase or decrease of Debt in the year;
(2) A similar statement in respect of other capital liabilities;
(3) A similar statement in respect of the aggregate gross liabilities of the State."—[Mr. Baldwin.]

Oral Answers to Questions — ANNUAL WRECK RETURN.

Commander Viscount CURZON: 1.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether it is intended to again publish the Annual Wreck Return?

The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of TRADE (Sir Robert Horne): It is proposed to continue the publication of the Annual Wreck Return in a somewhat condensed form. The Return for the year ended 30th June, 1914, was published last September. A return covering the four and a half years from 30th June, 1914, to 31st December, 1918, is in preparation and will be published shortly.

Viscount CURZON: Can the right hon. Gentleman assure us that none of the essential details which were formerly published will be omitted from the return?

Sir R. HORNE: I think the essential details still remain.

Mr. J. JONES: Will they include motor car accidents?

Oral Answers to Questions — TRADE AND COMMERCE.

PHOTOGRAPHIC PAPER.

Mr. GRANT: 2.
asked the President of the Board of Trade if he is aware that the photographic paper industry, developed under solicitation from the War Office during war time, and which is covered by the Prime Minister's pledge in regard to key industries and has further developed under this pledge, is now seriously menaced by foreign competition owing to rates of exchange; and if he will consider the immediate necessity of taking necessary steps to make good such undertaking in regard to this key industry?

Sir R. HORNE: I am aware of the position of the photographic base paper industry. I cannot add anything to what has recently been stated in this House as to the introduction of legislation with respect to the safeguarding of key industries and other matters of commercial policy, nor can I, before the introduction of such legislation, make any statement as to the inclusion of any particular commodity in the proposed list of key industries.

Mr. GRANT: Can the right hon. Gentleman say when such legislation will be introduced?

Sir R. HORNE: I hope to introduce legislation as the first matter of next Session.

Colonel CLAUDE LOWTHER: Is it not the fact that the toy industry is suffering severely, and can nothing be done to safeguard that industry at this season of the year?

Mr. SPEAKER: That does not arise out of the question.>

GERMAN GOODS.

Mr. HURD: 7.
asked the President of the Board of Trade how many permits were granted in the first halves of 1919 and 1920, respectively, to German travellers representing in this country the following German industries, namely, steel rails, magnetos, silks, gloves, and toys, respectively, and what is the total number of such permits granted to such travellers in these two periods?

The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. Shortt): I have been asked to answer this question, as it appears to relate to the number of permits granted under Section 10 (1) of the Aliens Restriction Act, 1919, to Germans to land temporarily in this country. The fullest available information on this subject as regards the present year will be found in the quarterly returns laid before Parliament. I regret that it is not possible to classify these permits in the manner suggested in the question. As regards 1919, I have stated several times that practically no Germans except British-born wives or widows and their children were allowed to land in this country during that year.

Mr. HURD: May I ask whether the permits identify the trade in which the travellers are concerned?

Mr. SHORTT: I think it would be possible on inquiry through the files and letters to find out the trades, but it would involve a great amount of work, and we are very busy with other work at present.

Colonel NEWMAN: 9.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware of the crisis in that portion of the glove and hosiery trade established during the War by renewed German competition; whether German gloves ire being sold at 9s. a dozen, while the cost of labour alone in similar gloves manufactured in this country is 13s. a dozen; and what action does he propose to take?

Sir R. HORNE: I am aware that the position in these trades is unsatisfactory. I would refer my hon. and gallant Friend to the answer which I gave to the hon. Member for South Nottingham on the 17th November, a copy of which I am sending him.

Colonel NEWMAN: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that when the Govern-
ment Bill against dumping becomes an Act next June these trades will be dead?

Sir R. HORNE: I would like to remind the hon. and gallant Member that these are not really cases of dumping in the proper sense; they are really exchange questions.

IMPORTS FROM CENTRAL EMPIRES.

Mr. G. TERRELL: 40.
asked the Prime Minister whether, in view of the grave menace of unemployment to thousands of workpeople in this country due to the importation of manufactured goods from the Central Empires at prices consequent on the collapse of the exchanges, against which British labour is unable to compete, he will grant an early day for the consideration of the subject?

The PRIME MINISTER (Mr. Lloyd George): I cannot add anything to the reply given to my hon. Friend by my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade on Thursday last.

GERMAN WORKERS' WAGES.

Mr. G. TERRELL: 53.
asked the President of the Board of Trade the average wages paid to German workers before the War and the average of the same wages being paid to workers now; and, consequent on the collapse of the exchange, the value in sterling of the product of their work imported into this country in competition with the product of our own workpeople who are receiving from £4 to £5 per week?

Sir R. HORNE: I am informed by my right hon. Friend the Minister of Labour that no statistical data are available on which a comparison of wages in Germany before the War with corresponding wages at the present time could be legitimately based. The total value in sterling of the imports into the United Kingdom registered during the first nine months of the current year as consigned from Germany was £20,647,000. Of this total £17,191,000 represented the value of articles wholly or mainly manufactured. I am unable to say what part of the total relates to commodities competing with the products of our own workpeople in receipt of wages ranging from £4 to £5 per week.

Mr. W. THORNE: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that in the "Labour Gazette" published recently it was stated that the increase of wages to the German
people since the War shows a greater percentage—in some cases 200 per cent.—over and above that given in Great Britain?

Sir R. HORNE: I am not aware of that fact.

Lieut.-Colonel CROFT: Is it not a fact that the difference in the value of money far exceeds any difference in the question of wages, and that competition is absolutely impossible against German goods?

Sir R. HORNE: Such information as I have, although it is not of the statistical nature I would desire to give in answer to a question in this House, goes to show that the rise in wages in Germany has not been nearly so great in proportion, and in relation to the increased cost in this country.

Sir H. BRITTAIN: May not the case be the other way with a shilling at a penny?

Sir R. HORNE: I do not know what the hon. Gentleman means by "the other way," but the fact is the depreciation in the mark has not been met by the relative rise in wages.

Sir FORTESCUE FLANNERY: Having regard to the great importance of this question, cannot my right hon. Friend cause inquiries to be made so that a statement may be issued?

Sir R. HORNE: I am trying to get the information as rapidly as I can.

Mr. G. TERRELL: Will the right hon. Gentleman publish the information which he has?

Sir R. HORNE: I should like to publish information upon which the House can thoroughly rely.

BENZOL.

Sir H. BRITTAIN: 54.
asked the President of the Board of Trade the average amount of British-made benzol produced per month in the current year; and how that amount compares with the average monthly production in 1918?

Sir R. HORNE: The average monthly production of refined benzol in the United Kingdom during the first nine months of the current year is understood to have been approximately 1,650,000 gallons, compared with an average monthly production during the year 1918 of 2,200,000 gallons.

Sir H. BRITTAIN: Has anything been done to remedy this state of affairs?

Sir R. HORNE: I am not perfectly certain what the causes are for the reduction in the production of benzol. My own impression, for what it is worth, is that the reduced output of coal has had the effect of reducing the output of byproducts.

Oral Answers to Questions — RUSSIA.

TRADE RELATIONS.

Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: 3.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether any preparations have been made by his Department to assist British merchants and manufacturers to take advantage of openings in the Russian and Siberian markets on the signing of an agreement for trading relationships between Russia and the British Empire; and, if so, what are they?

Mr. KELLAWAY (Secretary, Department of Overseas Trade): The Department of Overseas Trade has had under consideration the question of what assistance can be given to British manufacturers and merchants in the event of a trade agreement being concluded with the Soviet Government, but pending the conclusion of such an agreement I do not think it is desirable to make a statement on the subject.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: As this is a very big subject can the hon. Gentleman assure us that it is engaging the earnest attention of his Department?

Mr. KELLAWAY: Yes, Sir.

Mr. RAPER: 31.
asked the Prime Minister whether he is aware of the fact that the Russian Soviet Government have already failed to fulfil their obligations under their recent Swedish trade agreement; when he expects to be able to submit the terms of the proposed Anglo-Soviet trade agreement to this House; and which day he purposes giving this House an opportunity of debating the proposed agreement?

The PRIME MINISTER: I have no information to confirm the statement contained in the first part of the question. As regards the last part of the question, I can add nothing to what has already been said in reply to questions on this subject.

Mr. RAPER: May I ask my right hon. Friend if he does not consider the statement in the first part of my question of sufficient importance to inquire from the Swedish Legation?

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Is it not a fact that there is a flourishing trade going on to-day between Sweden and Russia, and that our merchants have to go to Sweden to buy Russian goods, and are doing it?

Mr. RAPER: May I have a reply to my supplementary question?

The PRIME MINISTER: I have no information as the result of inquiries to confirm the hon. Member's statement, but there is no doubt that trade is going on at the present moment between Sweden and Russia.

Mr. RAPER: Will the right hon. Gentleman make inquiries?

The PRIME MINISTER: indicated assent,

Mr. RAPER: 32.
asked the Prime Minister whether he is aware of the fact that the United States Government stated that the recent events in the Crimea in no way alters their attitude towards Soviet Russia, and that they purpose adhering firmly to the principles enunciated in their Note of 10th August; and whether the United States Government have stated that they consider the conclusion of the proposed Anglo-Soviet trade agreement would extend virtual de facto recognition to the Russian Soviet Government?

The PRIME MINISTER: No communication in this sense has been received from the United States Government.

Mr. RAPER: In view of the statements in all sections of the Press, will my right hon. Friend make an inquiry from the British representative at Washington?

The PRIME MINISTER: The attitude of the United States Government has been declared. They have taken their line, and so have we. They are responsible to their public, and we are responsible to ours.

Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: Did not the United States Government refuse to enter into a blockade against Russia quite recently?

The PRIME MINISTER: Yes, that is so.

BRITISH TRADE.

Mr. KILEY: 8.
asked the President of the Board of Trade what was the value of exports from the United Kingdom to Russia and Germany, respectively, in the years 1913–14?

Sir R. HORNE: The total values of the exports and re-exports from the United Kingdom consigned to Russia and Germany registered during the years 1913 and 1914, respectively, were as follows:—Exports of United Kingdom Produce: To Russia in 1913, £18,102,683, and in 1914, £14,441,322; to Germany in 1913, £40,677,030, and in 1914, £23,080,268. Re-exports of Foreign and Colonial Produce: To Russia in 1913, £9,591,270, and in 1914, £7,350,864; to Germany in 1913, £19,822,663, and in 1914, £13,351,005.

Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: May I ask if those goods to Germany were not paid for by goods coming to this country from Germany, and if the Government's legislation to prevent what is called trade dumping will not—

Mr. SPEAKER: This is some of the usual Monday's fiscal Debate.

Mr. C. WHITE: 19.
asked the President of the Board of Trade how many hundred weights of wheat, how many eggs, and how many pounds of butter, respectively, were imported into this country from Russia in 1913?

Sir R. HORNE: During the year 1913, 5,000,000 cwts. of wheat, 1,374,000,000 eggs, and 84,000,000 lbs. of butter were registered as having been imported into this country, consigned from Russia. The eggs and butter came largely from Siberia in 1913, when transport across Russia was available. The wheat was mainly the product of the Don district and the Ukraine.

Lieut.-Colonel CROFT: Is it not the fact that it is impossible to hope for many months, if not years, that anything like those quantities of foodstuffs can be exported from Russia again?

Sir R. HORNE: The hon. and gallant Gentleman is quite right.

Mr. KILEY: 20.
asked the President of the Board of Trade what was the value
of the goods manufactured in the clothing trades here which were exported to Russia in 1913?

Sir R. HORNE: The value of the wearing apparel of United Kingdom manufacture which was consigned to Russia from this country in 1913 was too small to be separately distinguished in the published record of our foreign trade. I will endeavour to ascertain the particulars and will communicate the result to the hon. Member as soon as possible.

Mr. KILEY: 21.
asked the President of the Board of Trade what was the total value of our flax imports in the year 1913; and what proportion came from Russia?

Sir R. HORNE: The total value of the flax imported into the United Kingdom during 1913 was £4,771,219. The value of the portion of these imports consigned from Russia was £3,309,989, or 69 per cent., of the total value of flax imported. It is necessary, however, to bear in mind that in 1913 the term "Russia" included regions which now form independent States. Further, the bulk, if not the whole, of the flax imported in 1913 from the territories known as "Russia" was grown in such districts as Esthonia and Lithuania, which are already open to trade.

Mr. GALBRAITH: 22.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he has any information showing the value of the engineering products needed by Russia at the present time?

Sir R. HORNE: No, I have no such information.

Mr. GALBRAITH: 23.
asked the President of the Board of Trade what was the value of the goods manufactured in the boot and shoe trade here which were ex ported to Russia in 1913?

Sir R. HORNE: The value of the exported boots and shoes wholly or mainly of leather, manufactured in the United Kingdom and consigned to Russia in 1913, was £10,489. The exports of boots and shoes of other materials to Russia were quite small. The precise figures are not immediately available, but I shall be glad to procure them for the hon. Member if he so desires.

Mr. GLANVILLE: 48.
asked the President of the Board of Trade how many pounds of wool were imported from Russia in 1913?

Sir R. HORNE: During the year 1913 4,862,000 lbs. of camel's hair and 7,144,000 lbs. of sheep's or lamb's wool were registered as having been imported into the United Kingdom, consigned from Russia.

Lieut.-Colonel CROFT: Is it not a fact that there is no wool for export now?

Sir R. HORNE: I have no information upon that point.

Mr. GLANVILLE: Is it not a fact that there are not any goods of any description available for export from Russia?

Sir R. HORNE: That sweeping statement is certainly not justifiable.

Colonel NEWMAN: Are there any camels in Russia?

Mr. GLANVILLE: 49.
asked the President of the Board of Trade how many hundredweights of barley and oats were imported into this country from Russia in 1913?

Sir R. HORNE: During the year 1913 6,105,000 cwts. of barley and 2,784,800 cwts. of oats were registered as having been imported into the United Kingdom, consigned from Russia.

Lieut.-Colonel CROFT: Is it not the fact that the barley crop is not sown this year?

Sir R. HORNE: That is again, I think, too sweeping a statement.

Lieut.-Colonel CROFT: For export? Does the right hon. Gentleman suggest there is any barley for export?

Sir R. HORNE: There is none sown for export delivery.

General Sir IVOR PHILIPPS: Has the right hon. Gentleman any information to show that the people of Russia are now starving?

Sir R. HORNE: There are a certain number of people in Russia starving through tack of transport.

Sir I. PHILIPPS: And lack of food, too.

Sir R. HORNE: I do not think it can be said that in the areas where food is grown, they are starving, but, in other areas where there is no transport to bring food to them, it is certainly the case.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Is it not a fact that cereals have been sent from Russia to France and Italy?

Sir R. HORNE: I know of one cargo of cereals sent to Italy. I know of nothing sent to France.

Mr. RONALD McNEILL: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the only egg in Russia was eaten by a friend of the Secretary of State for War?

PEACE NEGOTIATIONS.

Lieut.-Commander KEN-WORTHY: 27
asked the Prime Minister (1) whether His Majesty's Government intend to invite all governments interested to a general peace conference with the Soviet Government of Russia at which the question of the future of Armenia and the relations between the Russian Government and the Turkish and Persian Nationalists can be discussed; whether such a course would give some promise of peace and the saving of money to the British taxpayer;
(2) what is the present state of the negotiations between His Majesty's Government and the Soviet Government of Russia for the re-opening of trade relations between the British Empire and Russia; and when general peace negotiations will be entered into with the Soviet Government at which all questions of financial claims between the nationals and governments of both countries can be discussed and decided?

The PRIME MINISTER: As to general peace negotiations, the Russian Government were invited in July to a general Peace Conference in London; all the Allies, including France, were then prepared to engage in such a conference provided, the Polish dispute was included as the first subject for discussion. This proposal also provided that the Polish armies retired to a line far to the west of that laid down by the Riga Armistice. At that time, however, Bolshevik armies were marching triumphantly on Warsaw, and the invitation was refused by the Soviet Government in an offensively worded dispatch.
The difficulties in the way of such a conference are now much greater.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Does not the right hon. Gentleman think the position of Armenia has altered the situation, and with a view to saving Armenian lives and British money, would it not be advisable to negotiate now, in spite of any offensive messages sent by Russia?

The PRIME MINISTER: It is not so much that, as the fact that the difficulties have increased enormously in the last few months. There is no doubt they allowed a great opportunity for a general settlement to pass, and I am not at all sure now that it would be possible to effect it.

Colonel C. LOWTHER: Is the right hon. Gentleman satisfied that the Soviet Government can be trusted to carry out their pledges?

Sir D. MACLEAN: Have the Polish Army been withdrawn to the line suggested?

The PRIME MINISTER: Since then they have abided by the peace to which the Soviet Government themselves have agreed. The line drawn is much further east.

Oral Answers to Questions — PROFITEERING ACTS.

FURNISHED AND UNFURNISHED ROOMS.

Colonel Sir A. HOLBROOK: 4.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he will consider the extension of the powers under the Profiteering Acts, 1919–20, to include the lettings of furnished unfurnished room, with a view to bringing these lettings under the jurisdiction of local committees?

Sir R. HORNE: The question whether legislation should be proposed bringing the letting of furnished and unfurnished rooms within the scope of the Profiteering Act, 1919, received careful consideration during the passage of the Profiteering (Amendment) Bill, and my hon. Friend will remember that the House decided that these matters fell more appropriately within the province of rents restriction legislation. I would remind my hon. and gallant Friend that the Increase of Rent and Mortgage Interest (Restrictions) Act, 1920, limits the rent which may be charged for a furnished or unfurnished house or part of a house to which the Act applies.

Oral Answers to Questions — FOOD SUPPLIES.

WHEAT.

Colonel NEWMAN: 10.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that millers are compelled to pay 121s. per 496 lbs. ex warehouse for foreign wheat, whereas 95s. per 504 lbs. is all they have to pay for English wheat of equal quality; is he aware of the unnecessary increase in the price of bread which is entailed by this compulsory purchase of foreign wheat at an average of 25s. per quarter above its true price; and when will this anomaly be put an end to?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of FOOD (Sir W. Mitchell-Thomson): I have been asked to reply. I would remind my hon. and gallant Friend that under a free market there always existed a margin between the price of certain kinds of imported wheat and that paid for home-grown wheat. To-day the prices charged to millers for imported wheat range from Ills. 6d. per quarter of 480 lbs. for No. 1 Northern Manitoba downwards at par of American exchange this price of 111s. 6d. would represent a price of 84s. per quarter of 480 lbs. for foreign wheat landed in this country, as compared with the maximum price for home-grown wheat of the 1920 crop, which is 95s. per quarter of 504 lbs., or 90s. 6d. per quarter of 480 lbs. The only compulsion on the millers to buy foreign wheat arises from the unfortunate fact that our home supplies provide only about one-fifth of our total requirements.

Colonel NEWMAN: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that as a matter of fact wheat to-day in New York is cheaper than it has been since 1915?

Viscount CURZON: 44.
asked the Prime Minister whether, seeing that it would be possible to reduce the price of bread if all control of wheat were removed, he will state what are the reasons for continuing the control of wheat?

Sir W. MITCHELL-THOMSON: I have been asked to reply. I would refer the Noble Lord to the answer given to a similar question on 23rd November to the hon. and gallant Member for Newcastle East (Major Barnes).

Viscount CURZON: May I ask whether any new facts have not recently transpired which may somewhat alter the nature of the reply?

Sir W. MITCHELL-THOMSON: Not since the 23rd November.

Colonel NEWMAN: 84.
asked the Minister of Labour whether, in view of the importance of the work done by the staff of his Ministry in their monthly comparison of food prices with those ruling before the War, and to the fact that the economies or readjustments which have had to be made by those families whose incomes are not automatically increased to meet the rise in the cost of living are not taken into account in the statistics as published, he will say what variation from the 176 per cent, rise would result in the event of foreign wheat being sold to the millers at a cost of from 90s. to 100s. per 496 lbs., as against the 121s. which is the price which millers are compelled to pay by the Ministry of Food for samples of equal milling value with English-grown wheat, although 90s. to 100s. represents the fair price for foreign wheat ex warehouse in this country?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY OF LABOUR (Sir Montague Barlow): I am informed by my right hon. Friend the Minister of Food that he is unable to accept my hon. and gallant Friend's suggestions as to the price at which wheat is issued to millers and as to what represents a fair price for foreign wheat in this country. I may say, however, that a reduction of Id. in the price of the 4-lb. loaf of bread, with an equivalent reduction in the retail price of flour, would reduce the Ministry of Labour's index number, relating to the cost of living, by nearly 2½ points. I understand that such reduction would correspond with a reduction of 8s. per 280-lb. sack of flour, or 10s. to 15s. per quarter of 480 lbs. of wheat.

Colonel NEWMAN: Is the hon. Member aware that the general public have no confidence in the Committee of the Labour Ministry that prepares these figures?

Sir M. BARLOW: No, I am not aware of that; and I very much doubt whether it is so.

Mr. GEORGE EDWARDS: 93.
asked the Minister of Food whether he is aware that the price of wheat is now below the controlled maximum on account of the abnormal deliveries by farmers, and that the store places of millers are congested so that they can take no more deliveries; and whether, under the circumstances, he will now remove the control as an inducement to farmers to hold their wheat until the spring, when it will all be wanted?

Sir W. MITCHELL-THOMSON: Returns received to date do not support the suggestion made in the first part of the question. As regards the second part, it does not appear probable that, if the world market continues to fall, the removal of a maximum price for homegrown wheat could constitute any inducement to the farmer to hold.

MEAT (SALES) COMMITTEE.

Major MALONE: 94.
asked the Minister of Food whether he is prepared to give the names of the Members of the Committee advising him in connection with the sales of imported meat, and how often that Committee has met within the last three months?

Sir W. MITCHELL-THOMSON: The Meat (Sales) Committee to which the Food Controller referred in the reply given on the 11th November consists of the following members: Parliamentary Secretary of the Ministry (Chairman), Mr. E. F. Wise, Sir Thomas Robinson, Sir Philip Proctor, Mr. P. S. Hall, Captain Elliot, Mr. Hastings, Captain Penney, Miss Lunn (Secretary). The Committee has met 13 times within the last three months.

Major HOWARD: Can the hon. Gentleman tell us how many of these are producers of meat in this country?

Oral Answers to Questions — PEACE TREATIES (AGREEMENTS, PUBLICATION).

Mr. HOGGE: 25.
asked the Prime Minister when he will carry out his undertaking to publish all agreements, protocols, etc., relating to the execution of the Treaty of Versailles?

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Mr. Cecil Harmsworth): Negotiations between
His Majesty's Government and the Allied Powers are still proceeding, and will be expedited as much as possible. My hon. Friend may rest assured that I will make a statement on this subject at the earliest possible moment.

Lieut.-Colonel A. MURRAY: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that owing to the Foreign Relations Committee of the French Chamber, the French Chamber is now in possession of much more information than this House is on this subject?

Mr. HARMSWORTH: I am doing my best to expedite these negotiations. I was not aware of the fact mentioned by my hon. and gallant Friend.

Mr. HOGGE: May I put this down on this day week?

Mr. HARMSWORTH: I am afraid it is not very much use. Perhaps my hon. Friend will put it down in a fortnight.

Mr. HOGGE: This day fortnight, Mr. Speaker.

Oral Answers to Questions — FINANCIAL RESOLUTIONS.

Mr. HARTLEY DENNISS: 29.
asked the Prime Minister whether he will consider the advisability of the Chancellor of the Exchequer or the Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury attending the Committee on every Financial Resolution in order that the Committee may be able to ascertain from them the effect of such Resolution on the taxation of the country?

The PRIME MINISTER: Financial Resolutions and the explanatory White Papers presented to the House are approved by the Treasury; and while my right hon. Friends are, of course, at the disposition of the House on any general financial question, I think the explanation of a Department's financial proposals is more properly undertaken by the Ministers representing the particular Department concerned.

Oral Answers to Questions — UNEMPLOYMENT.

Major NALL: 36.
asked the Prime Minister whether it is intended to spend considerable sums of money on public works in relief of unemployment;
whether he is aware that this unemployment is largely due to the depression in the building trade caused by the prohibitory powers of the Ministry of Health and to the part closing of many factories and curtailment of new enterprise caused by unrestricted imports; and whether he will take steps to remove all restrictions on building enterprise and redeem his pledges in regard to protecting key industries and preventing dumping in this country?

The PRIME MINISTER: The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative; to the second in the negative, and to the last part that the pledges given by the Government will be fulfilled.

Major NALL: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman if at a time when unemployment is so rife, it is really the policy of the Government to restrict enterprise in building?

The PRIME MINISTER: Certainly not.

Major NALL: But that is what it amounts to.

Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKE: 82.
asked the Minister of Labour if he is aware of the results of an inquiry conducted by the employers' organisation into the state of employment in the leather producing industry indicating that in the middle of October employment was about 30 per cent, less than the normal, whereas the percentage of unemployment officially given, and frequently quoted as representing the state of employment in the industry, was only 7.1 per cent.; and if, in view of this error in the official figures, he will endeavour to obtain more accurate information as to the state of employment in this industry?

Sir M. BARLOW: I am aware of the inquiry referred to, and my hon. Friend will find, on page 613 of the "Labour Gazette" for November (a copy of which I am sending him) that a reference thereto has been made in the report on employment in the leather trades in October. The percentage of 7.1 quoted represents the proportion of trade union members reported to the Ministry of Labour as wholly unemployed at the end of September, and I have no reason to doubt the accuracy of this figure. The amount of under-employment indicated
by the results of the employers' inquiry took account, not only of workpeople entirely unemployed, but also of reductions in the working hours of workpeople in employment, and my hon. Friend will observe that in the particulars given in the "Labour Gazette" it has been pointed out that there has been a considerable amount of short time in the leather industries during the past two months.

Captain R. TERRELL: 86.
asked the Minister of Labour what percentage of unemployment among the trades of which he has a record existed at the end of the week terminating 20th November; and what proportion of this unemployment is represented by' men who have actually served in the War?

Sir M. BARLOW: The percentage of unemployment at 19th November was 33 in trades and industries other than agriculture and domestic service, as shown by the number of unemployment books lodged at Employment Exchanges under the new Unemployment Insurance Act. Owing to the fact that new entrants under the Act were not qualified for benefit at 19th November, the number of unemployment books lodged and consequently the percentage of unemployment as given is below the actual figure; 57 per cent, of the workpeople recorded as unemployed were ex-service men and women.

Captain TERRELL: Is it not a fact that if certain trade unions were to relax some of their regulations the whole of these ex-service men could be employed?

Sir M. BARLOW: I think we could all suggest a certain amount of hypothetical circumstances under which they might possibly be absorbed. The question raised by my hon. and gallant Friend is at the moment occupying the close attention of the Cabinet Committee.

Captain TERRELL: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that there is great dissatisfaction amongst the unemployed ex-service men in this country, and what right has any trade union to dictate to ex-service men as to what industries they should be employed in?

Sir M. BARLOW: I am fully aware, and I am sure the whole House is aware, that the point raised is a very pressing and a very difficult one, and I hope it will be decided at an early date.

Captain TERRELL: It is not so difficult as the Cabinet imagines.

Mr. W. THORNE: 87.
asked the Minister of Labour if he is aware that in many industrial establishments throughout the country there is likely to be an extended holiday period at the Christmas season, which will result in many thousands of workmen being idle for periods varying from one to four weeks; and whether he will issue an instruction that workmen who are qualified will be entitled to receive unemployment benefit under the National Insurance Act, although they may not be technically discharged from their employment?

Sir M. BARLOW: Unemployment benefit is not payable under the Unemployment Insurance Act in respect of recognised holidays, but where a holiday is extended by the employer for his convenience the period of extension is ordinarily regarded as unemployment for the purposes of benefit. The rules to be applied are laid down in the Act, and any cases of doubt will be settled in the usual way by the Courts of Referees and the Umpire.

Oral Answers to Questions — EX-SERVICE MEN.

ACCOUNTS COMPLAINTS DEPARTMENT (WAR OFFICE).

Mr. HURD: 38.
asked the Prime Minister whether he will cause inquiries to be made with a view to reforms in the Accounts Complaints Department of the War Office in order to obviate the present delays in the settlement of claims and so remove the strong and increasing feeling of grievance among ex-service men?

The PRIME MINISTER: This will be replied to by the War Office.

Mr. HURD: Cannot the right hon. Gentleman himself find time to give a little attention to this matter, and is he aware that hardly a day passes on which hon. Members do not receive urgent complaints from their constituents?

Sir A. WILLIAMSON (Parliamentary Secretary, War Office): My right, hon. Friend has asked me to answer this question. In numerous instances settlement cannot be effected without reference to authorities in India or other places
abroad, and consequently considerable time elapses before these cases are finally disposed of. If the hon. Member will let me have particulars of any specific cases he has in mind, I will see that they receive attention.

Mr. HURD: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether, as a matter of fact, I have not put several cases before him, and that he has had to admit that long and unnecessary delays have taken place?

Sir A. WILLIAMSON: I did not quite hear what the hon. Member said, but if it was with reference to the question of Mesopotamia, there is very considerable delay in getting information, and sometimes when it conies a further letter has to be written to elucidate some obscure point.

Mr. HURD: As a matter of fact, were not these British cases?

Sir A. WILLIAMSON: I will look into the matter with great pleasure if the hon. Member will give me a specific case.

CHAPLAINS.

Mr. BLAIR: 79.
asked the Minister of Labour if anything has been done to assist demobilised chaplains?

Sir M. BARLOW: The facilities offered by the Appointments Department are at the service of demobilised chaplains as well as of other ex-service men, and the Department has been throughout in touch with the representative religious bodies, to whom in the ordinary way it would in the first instance refer any demobilised chaplains who require assistance.

UNEMPLOYMENT STATISTICS.

Mr. MILLS: 81.
asked the Minister of Labour the number of wholly disabled, partially disabled, or fit ex-service men now unemployed; and whether the possibility of poultry farming on a territorial basis has been considered as a partial solution of this problem, having regard to the large number of eggs of doubtful quality now on sale?

Sir M. BARLOW: The total number of able-bodied ex-service men in Great Britain registered as unemployed on 12th November, 1920, was 203,479. Including Ireland, the figure was 220,935.
The total number of wholly disabled or partially disabled ex-service men registered as unemployed in Great Britain on the same date was 15,384. Including Ireland' the figure was 18,881.
These figures all relate to men on the live registers of the Employment Exchanges, but I realise that a margin must be added for men unemployed but not registered.
It is not clear what is meant by the expression "Territorial basis." I would refer my hon. Friend to the Ministry of Agriculture regarding this point.

TRAINING.

Captain TERRELL: 85.
asked the Minister of Labour if he will state the trades in which difficulties have still not yet been surmounted to permit of the adequate training of ex-service men; and if he will in each case specify the reasons for such difficulties?

Sir M. BARLOW: As regards the training of disabled ex-service men, the various Local Technical Advisory Committees have naturally, in consequence of the industrial depression, recently exercised a greater reluctance than hitherto in agreeing the numbers to be admitted to training. This is based upon ultimate prospects of employment. The Building Trades Federation, indeed, have informed us that, so far as they are concerned, they cannot agree that any further disabled men can be admitted to training as from the 30th September last. In view, however, of the serious shortage of skilled labour in these trades and the urgent need for a greatly expanded building effort, we cannot accept this, and negotiations with a view to removing the embargo are now in progress. As regards the training of fit men, in pursuance of a decision of the Cabinet, we are approaching employers and employed in connection with three industries—foundry trades, iron puddlers and railway wagon building. Further, negotiations are in progress, as my hon. and gallant Friend is aware, in connection with proposals very largely to augment the number of men engaged in housing operations, and, as my right hon. Friend the Minister of Labour told the House last week, those negotiations will be brought to a conclusion at the earliest possible date.

HOUSE OF COMMONS REFRESHMENT DEPARTMENT.

Major EDWARDS: 97.
asked the hon. Member for Cheltenham, as Chairman of the Kitchen and Refreshment Rooms Committee, the number of men and of women employed by his committee, whole or part time, in August, 1914, and at the present time, respectively; and how many of these are ex-service men?

Sir J. AGG-GARDNER: In August, 1914, there were 69 men, 18 women and 10 boys, together with 53 men (part time) in the employ of the Kitchen Committee. The numbers now are: 53 men, 57 women and 5 boys, with 21 men and 20 women (part time). Of these men 45 are ex-service men, while of the women the majority have been engaged for the last five years, and many are required for household work as well as for waiting.

Major EDWARDS: May I ask the hon. Member if his conscience, is now quite clear that he and his committee have done their duty by the ex-service men?

Sir J. AGG-GARDNER: Yes, Sir; my conscience is quite clear.

Oral Answers to Questions — GREECE.

Mr. MYERS: 41.
asked the Prime Minister if he can now say whether the Allies intend to respect the wishes of the Greek electors, as expressed in their if cent elections and at any plebiscite which may be taken; and, if not, what British forces will be required to divert the wishes of the Greek people in the direction required by the Allies?

The PRIME MINISTER: It is not possible to make a public statement on this matter at a moment when it is being discussed with our Allies.

Oral Answers to Questions — IRELAND.

LEAGUE OF NATIONS.

Mr. MYERS: 42.
asked the Prime Minister whether the British Government will instruct its Delegate to ask for the appointment of a Commission by the League of Nations to investigate the present situation in Ireland and make recommendations for a settlements?

The PRIME MINISTER: The answer is in the negative.

SETTLEMENT PROPOSALS.

Mr. HOGGE: 45.
asked the Prime Minister whether he has considered the precedents of the South African Republic and Egypt in relation to the settlement of the Irish difficulties; and whether he is willing to send a Commission to Ireland, similar to the Milner Commission, in order to further explore the possibility, not only of a cessation of crime, but of a settlement of the whole question?

The PRIME MINISTER: I can add nothing to previous statements on this subject.

Mr. HOGGE: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that he has never made a statement on this subject? As a matter of fact, I raised this in Debate last Thursday, and cannot my right hon. Friend say specifically whether until the Government have repressed all crime on both sides he is unprepared to take any other step?

The PRIME MINISTER: I have repeatedly made statements on the whole point and pith of this question, "to farther explore the possibility, not only of a cessation of crime, but of a settlement of the whole question." Not only have I made statements, but we are constantly bearing that in mind.

Mr. HOGGE: Is it not a fact that the right hon. Gentleman has refused to go any further with the resolutions which were passed by the Labour Congress in Dublin, which was a representative body; and does he adhere to the view that, up till now, no representative body of opinion has emerged in Ireland which would lead him to enter into negotiations with them with any hope of settlement?

The PRIME MINISTER: Take the very question which the hon. Gentleman is asking me. It was the subject of a very prolonged discussion on Thursday last by my hon. Friend the. Member for Belfast (Mr. Devlin), and I can add nothing to what I said then.

PASSPORTS (UNITED STATES).

Mr. RONALD McNEILL: 71.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether passports have been
issued to the widow of the late Lord Mayor of Cork and to various persons at Balbriggan and Thurles, believed to be members of or in sympathy with the Sinn Fein organisation, to give evidence before a committee of inquiry instituted by the American newspaper the "Nation" into alleged Irish atrocities; whether he is aware that the purpose of such an inquiry is to produce anti-British propaganda for use in America and elsewhere; whether it is consistent with national self-respect to assist the holding of inquiries in foreign countries into the internal affairs of the United Kingdom; and if he will explain why passports were issued to the persons refered to for such a purpose?

Mr. HARMSWORTH: His Majesty's Government are not concerned with committees of inquiry instituted by American newspapers. In the issue of passports for the United States they are not influenced by the question whether applicants may or may not intend to give evidence before such committees, but His Majesty's Government are, of course, by no means indifferent to the spreading of anti-British propaganda in the United States.

Mr. DEVLIN: Is not the best way to stop all forms of propaganda abroad to appoint a judicial, impartial inquiry into all these matters in Ireland?

INCENDIARISM, CORK.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: (by Private Notice) asked the Chief Secretary for Ireland whether he has any information with regard to the alleged burning by forces of the Crown of a large shop, a club-house, and several dwelling houses in the City of Cork on Friday night last; whether it is true, as stated, that police prevented the extinction of the flames at the point of the revolver; and whether the burnings are still being continued?

The CHIEF SECRETARY for IRELAND (Colonel Sir Hamar Greenwood): I am informed that several Sinn Fein halls, a large shop, and several dwelling houses were burned down in Cork on Friday night. The police do not know by whom this was done. The suggestion that the police prevented the extinction of the flames at the point of the revolver is absolutely without foundation. They gave every assistance in their power, and were,
I am informed, complimented by the fire brigade for the assistance that they gave. They also prevented looting. Last night, at 11.30, the Irish Transport Workers' Hall in Camden Quay was burned down by persons unknown. The police on this occasion also gave every possible assistance in suppressing the fire and preventing looting.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that on Saturday several papers, including the "Evening News," published a statement that this had been done by Black and Tans, and that they had prevented people at the revolver's point; and will he have those papers prosecuted?

Major NALL: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether those fires were probably done by the same organisation that caused the fires in Liverpool?

Mr. DEVLIN: Does the right hon. Gentleman assert that it is quite possible, to burn all sorts of buildings, including shops belonging to Unionists, in a great city, and that he neither knows nor does he seem to care who are the malefactors in these cases, nor does he make any attempt to bring them to justice? Is that the position of the right hon. Gentleman?

Sir H. GREENWOOD: No, it is not, and the hon. Member for Falls knows that it is not.

Mr. DEVLIN: What is your position?

Sir H. GREENWOOD: This is a private notice question, and I have done my best to get an answer by wire. I will make fuller inquiries, and if the hon. Member will put his question down for Thursday, I will give him a more detailed report.

OUTRAGES, LIVERPOOL.

Major COHEN: (by Private Notice) asked the Home Secretary whether he has any information to give to the House concerning the fires which took place in Liverpool yesterday?

Sir J. HARMOOD-BANNER: Before the right hon. Gentleman answers, may I ask if he will supplement his reply by informing the House what steps were taken after the Sinn Fein disclosures, beyond the ordinary police measures, to protect life and property in Liverpool, and what steps are now being taken after
the attack, especially considering the large Irish population that there is in Liverpool?

Mr. SHORTT: According to the latest information that I have obtained, the situation seems to be well in hand. There seems no doubt that the fires were the result of an organised conspiracy, and a conspiracy in which members of the Sinn Fein party were engaged. With regard to the precautions, the police took all the necessary precautions that they could possibly take, but I need hardly say that I cannot make them public.

ULSTER VOLUNTEERS.

Mr. DEVLIN: (by Private Notice) asked the Chief Secretary for Ireland whether his attention has been called to the reign of terror which has sprung up in several districts in the North of Ireland; whether the Ulster Volunteers for several weeks past have been holding up pedestrians and motorists; whether on Wednesday night, the 24th inst., at Killylea, in County Armagh, a military patrol were stopped and ordered to put their hands up; whether, on inquiry, the military officer was told that they were Ulster Volunteers who had orders to hold up all road traffic; whether the officer arrested the volunteers, who were subsequently released; and what action the right hon. Gentleman proposes to take in the matter?

Sir H. GREENWOOD: I have no evidence of a reign of terror having sprung up in several districts in the North of Ireland. My evidence is to the effect that the reign of terror is on the decline in that and other parts of Ireland. I only know of one or two cases of holding up pedestrians or motorists. As regards the incident referred to by the hon. Member, I am informed that, at 11.45 p.m. on the 24th inst., a military officer and 20 other ranks, with two members of the Royal Irish Constabulary, left Armagh for Killylea in a motor lorry. When near Killylea, they were halted and ordered to put up their hands by three men who are described as Ulster Volunteers. The military dismounted, and arrested them.

Mr. DEVLIN: Can the right hon. Gentleman say why they were released after their arrest, and is it a virtue to, do this in the North and a crime to do it
in the South? I want to know why they were released, and why there should be a discrimination in these cases?

Sir H. GREENWOOD: I can assure the hon. Member and the House that there is no discrimination in dealing with men in Ireland who are carrying arms illegally—

Mr. DEVLIN: No adjectives; give us an answer. [Interruption.] May I ask the right hon. Gentleman why these men who were arrested for holding up the military in Ulster were released without trial and without being brought to justice?

Sir H. GREENWOOD: The hon. Member is making statements about things of which I am not aware. If he will put his Private Notice question down for to-morrow, I will have a more detailed answer. I must repeat that there is no discrimination or preference given to any person in Ireland who bears arms illegally; they are all liable to arrest.

Mr. DEVLIN: The right hon. Gentleman has admitted that these men were arrested. I want to know why they were not brought to trial, and why equal justice does not prevail all over the country. I will raise this question at 11 o'clock to-night.

MURDERS AND REPRISALS.

Mr. T. P. O'CONNOR: I gave the Chief Secretary notice on Saturday that I should ask him to-day what are the number of killings of servants of the Crown and of civilians during the weekend; that I should repeat the question which I asked on a previous day with regard to the cases of Frank Flynn, Edmund Carmody and Thomas Lyons; that I should ask for any information in the possession of the Chief Secretary with regard to the killing of a young farmer at Tuam, near Galway, who was shot dead as he was being taken from the police station to the camp of the 16th Lancers, and also with regard to a tailor named Denis O'Donnell, of Kildorrery, County Cork, who was shot dead, and an aged ex-soldier named Lyons, residing at Tinnymuck, Moate, who was also shot dead; and that I should also ask him whether the Most Reverend Dr. O'Dea, Bishop of Galway, who has been especi-
ally pronounced in his denunciations against crime, has received a letter containing these words—
If any members of His Majesty's forces are interfered with in Galway, you will meet with Father Griffin's fate. Beware";
and whether Father Meehan and Father Cunnane, both curates in the diocese of Dr. O'Dea, have also received threatening letters?

Sir H. GREENWOOD: The only casualty during the week-end—that is to say, Saturday and Sunday—of which I have received an official report, is one policeman killed. No other deaths of servants of the Crown or civilians have been reported. If Friday's casualties are included, the figures were one policeman, two soldiers (at Kildorrery), and two civilians (Mortimer Duggan in Broadford, Co. Limerick, and Denis Carey, Nenagh). With regard to the case of Patrick Flynn, who was a farmer's son, it is most difficult to secure information from the people in the neighbourhood, but, as far as I have been able to ascertain, this man was taken from a neighbour's house at midnight on the 23rd inst, and his dead body was subsequently found near the house. I am informed with regard to Thomas Lyons, that, at about 3.30 p.m. on the 21st November, a cycle patrol of military was proceeding along the Westport-Leenane Road. When about five miles from Westport, the patrol observed a man in the fields, whom they called upon to halt. He refused to halt, and was shot. The matter has been reported to the competent military authority, with a view to having an inquiry held. Denis O'Donnell was found shot dead at Leasdown, Kildorrery, at 7.30 a.m. on the 24th instant. I am informed that Martin Lyons, who was an ex-soldier, was shot dead on the 24th instant by armed men at Tinnymuck, Moate. Further reports have been called for in both these cases. With reference to the Rev. Dr. O'Dea, Bishop of Galway, I am informed that he and the Rev. Father O Meehan and the Rev. Father Cunnane have received threatening letters as stated. The police have assured the Bishop that they will give every possible protection, and have asked for his assistance and cooperation in tracing the guilty parties in the many crimes which have recently been committed in his diocese. I will read to the House the text of the letter addressed by the Divisional Commissioner to the Bishop—
Dear Dr. O'Dea,—I have been confined to my room, as perhaps you may have heard. I write at once to say I am very sorry indeed to learn from your published letter that threatening letters have been received by you and some of your clergy. I have asked the County Inspector to call on you in the matter. I must say I think it most unfair to attribute every wrong act such as these, and also the shooting of poor father Griffin to the Crown Forces. I have striven hard to control the feelings of my men, and unjust charges, added to their constant expectation of assassination, make the position very difficult. I would welcome your assistance in tracing the perpetrators of the terrible murder (as we fear) of Joyce "—
this was the Nationalist school teacher who was kidnapped three or four weeks ago—
and also of Father Griffin. Need I assure you that no one longs more ardently than I do for the end of the reign of the 'gunmen.' If you have any suggestion to make, either as to steps for your protection or for the protection of any of your clergy, I shall, of course, do anything I can.
This Divisional Commissioner is one of the most able officers in the Royal Irish Constabulary, and is a devout Roman Catholic.

Mr. DEVLIN: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that Members of this House are getting threatening letters from "Black and Tans" for doing their duty?

Oral Answers to Questions — ARMY SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATE.

Mr. G. LOCKER-LAMPSON: 47.
asked the Lord Privy Seal whether there will be a Supplementary Army Estimate before Christmas?

The PRIME MINISTER: Yes, Sir. We hope to be able to take this next week.

Oral Answers to Questions — TRANSPORT.

GREAT NORTHERN RAILWAY (WOMEN EMPLOYÉS).

Mr. ATKEY: 57.
asked the Minister of Transport what number of women have been employed by the Great Northern Railway Company since the Armistice whose duties prior to the War were performed by men?

The MINISTER of TRANSPORT (Sir Eric Geddes): I am informed by the railway company that the total number of women employed by them, including women clerks and hotel servants, was
3,613 on the 30th November, 1918, and 1,189 on 31st October, 1920. Five women have been put on since the Armistice in grades in which women were not employed before the War.

Mr. ATKEY: In view of these figures, does the right hon. Gentleman not think he can recommend the Great Northern Railway Company to give employment to old servants who are thrown on the streets without any compensation whatever, as, for instance, the case I mentioned a fortnight ago?

Sir E. GEDDES: I am afraid I have not got in mind the case my hon. Friend mentioned a fortnight ago.

MIDLAND RAILWAY (PLATFORM TICKETS, NOTTINGHAM).

Mr. ATKEY: 58.
asked the Minister of Transport whether he will ascertain from the Midland Railway Company the date when the platform tax was first imposed at their Nottingham station; and what is the amount of revenue which has accrued from this source up to date?

Sir E. GEDDES: The side entrances to Nottingham station were closed in February, 1917, and I presume that a charge for admission to the platforms was instituted at or about that time. I am ascertaining what the platform ticket receipts are, and will communicate the result to my hon. Friend.

Sir H. BRITTAIN: May I ask whether the Midland Railway have any sort of grudge against Nottingham?

Sir E. GEDDES: I do not think so at all

Mr. W. THORNE: Does not the same principle apply to all railway stations at the present time?

Sir E. GEDDES: It applies to all railway stations where they have been closed to facilitate the working.

EXCURSION TRAINS.

Mr. GILBERT: 59.
asked the Minister of Transport the number of excursion trains that were run by the various rail way companies during the months of August and September; and the total number of passengers carried by such trains in each of the same months?

Colonel MILDMAY: Before the right hon. Gentleman answers this question, may I ask whether the inability to run excursion trains has not been due largely to labour difficulties, which have greatly hampered the provision of locomotive power?

Sir E. GEDDES: I do not think there is much shortage of locomotives to-day. The number of special excursion trains run during August was 424, and the total number of passengers conveyed by these trains was 235,408. In addition, 6,929 excursion passengers were conveyed toy ordinary trains. In September, the number of special trains run was 808, but complete particulars of the number of passengers convoyed are not available. Particulars of the total number of excursion passenger journeys and the receipts there from are now included in the published four-weekly Railway Statistics

Viscount CURZON: Do the figures the right hon. Gentleman has just given include railway trains to race meetings?

Sir E. GEDDES: These were excursion trains. Race trains would not be run at excursion fares, so far as I am advised.

Mr. GILBERT: 60.
asked the Minister of Transport the names of the railway companies that have not run any excursion trains during this year; and if his Department are pressing such companies to favourably consider and grant to the travelling public next year the same excursion facilities as were given by several companies since August last?

Sir E. GEDDES: The names of the principal railway companies which were unable to run excursion trains during the past summer season were:

Great Western,
London & North Western,
London & South Western,
Glasgow & South Western,
North British.
I will certainly ask the railway companies to consider favourably the provision of excursion trains during next year, and I will take the matter up with them in good time.

Dr. MURRAY: Will the right hon. Gentleman press the same point upon the steamship companies?

Sir E. GEDDES: The Ministry of Transport has nothing to do with steamship companies.

Dr. MURRAY: What a shame!

CHRISTMAS HOLIDAYS.

Mr. GILBERT: 61.
asked the Minister of Transport whether, as the Christmas holidays will in many industries and businesses be at least three or four days, he will ask the various railway companies who are considering excursion trains for Christmas whether such cheap tickets can be made available for a longer period than one day, as during the summer months, in view of the fact that many of the public desire to travel long distances in order to spend Christmas at their homes?

Sir E. GEDDES: The consideration referred to by the hon. Member was specifically mentioned in the letter which I sent to the railway companies asking for their views on the practicability of running excursion trains at Christmas.

Captain TERRELL: 63.
asked the Minister of Transport if he can inform the House whether, in view of the coming Christmas reunion, there is any reason why the railway companies should not, if they cannot themselves issue cheap tickets, permit, as before the War, the chartering of special trains at approved rates so that the public by collective effort might take the opportunity of revisiting friends and relatives at a reduced outlay?

Sir E. GEDDES: As I have stated, I am hoping that it will be possible to offer excursion facilities during the coming Christmas holiday season, and I expect to be able to make an announcement within the next few days. I would point out, however, that if the railway companies themselves are unable to run special trains at cheap fares it is not likely that they will be able to run them for anyone else as suggested by the hon. and gallant Member.

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: Will the right hon. Gentleman see that all these trains are made to pay their way so that there will be no further demand upon the public exchequer?

Sir E. GEDDES: The principle upon which all these matters have been considered, as the House is well aware, is
that they shall increase the net revenue; to that principle we shall adhere. Of course—as the House is also aware—I am frequently pressed to give facilities which will not increase the net revenue.

Sir W. JOYNSON - HICKS: Having regard to the state of the public finances, will the right hon. Gentleman undertake not to press anything upon any railway company that will increase the charge upon the public revenue?

Sir E. GEDDES: The principle upon which these facilities are judged is whether or not they will increase the net revenue.

Captain TERRELL: Is it not a fact that the railways will never pay their way so long as the Government try to run them?

Sir E. GEDDES: The Government does not run the railways.

SCOTTISH RAILWAYS (TIMBER EATES).

Mr. R. McLAREN: 64.
asked the Minister of Transport whether, since the rail way rates in Scotland were raised, the percentage of empty wagons transported has been increased and the net revenue derived from traffic in the North of Scot land has thereby been reduced; and if, under these circumstances, he will consult with the railway companies operating in the North of Scotland and ascertain their opinion as to the advisability of reducing the rates for home-grown timber to the South immediately?

Sir E. GEDDES: The statistics for the four weeks ended 10th October show that the percentage of empty wagon miles in Scotland during that period was slightly less than during the four weeks ended 18th July and 15th August, With regard to the latter part of the question, I would refer the hon. Member to the reply given to the hon. Member for Forfar on the 25th instant, of which I am sending him a copy.

Mr. McLAREN: 65.
asked the Minister of Transport the average cost per ton per mile for the conveyance by railway in Scotland of home-grown timber, and the same average cost for the conveyance of foreign timber in Scotland; whether in pre-War times the cost of transport for foreign timber was less per mile than that for home-grown timber; and
whether, under the rates now ruling, the preference on foreign timber has now been increased?

Sir E. GEDDES: No particulars are available as to the average cost of the conveyance of home-grown and foreign timber on the Scottish railways. The same percentage increases have been made on rates chargeable on imported timber as on home-grown timber.

ROADS, CLASSIFICATION.

Viscount CURZON: 66.
asked the Minister of Transport if he will now state when the classification of roads will be completed?

Sir E. GEDDES: All the proposals of the local authorities are now in the Minis try, and I hope that classification, so far as the roads in England, Wales, and Scotland are concerned, will be complete by the end of February.

Viscount CURZON: Will that classification be available before the Roads Bill is carried in the House?

Sir E. GEDDES: I am afraid I do not know to what Roads Bill my hon. and' gallant Friend refers.

Lieut.-Colonel MURRAY: The Roads Bill introduced on the 26th November (Friday) by the right hon. Gentleman himself.

Sir E. GEDDES: That was to acquire land in and around London. [HON. MEMBERS: "No, no!"]

Lieut.-Colonel MURRAY: The Bill to-amend the Development and Road Improvement Funds Act—the original Act—and to take over the roads by the Ministry of Transport?

Sir E. GEDDES: No, Sir; there is no-such Bill to take over any such roads.

An HON. MEMBER: Where have you been over the week-end?

Oral Answers to Questions — PEACE HANDBOOKS.

Sir J. BUTCHER: 69.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether his attention has been called to the high prices charged by His Majesty's Stationery Office for the volumes of the Peace Handbooks which
have recently been published, the prices varying from 10s. 6d. to 14s. per volume; whether, in order to enable ordinary members of the public to purchase these volumes, he will give directions that the prices shall be substantially reduced; and whether he will consider the propriety of making free grants of these volumes, or of such of them as can be spared, to public libraries?

Mr. HARMSWORTH: The prices of the Peace Handbooks barely cover the cost of production, and could not be further reduced without pecuniary loss. Each bound volume consists of several handbooks, which can be purchased separately. The sale of the Handbooks already issued is satisfactory; no copies of the present edition are likely to remain unsold, or become available for presentation to public libraries.

Sir J. BUTCHER: Can the hon. Gentleman make known by advertisement or otherwise that these valuable handbooks, so largely used at the Peace Conference, are available for purchase by the general public?

Mr. HARMSWORTH: I think the question of my hon. and learned Friend and the answer will give these handbooks a very good advertisement.

Dr. MURRAY: To what Peace do these handbooks refer?

Oral Answers to Questions — LEAGUE OF NATIONS.

BRITISH REPRESENTATIVES (PERSONNEL).

Mr. GRANT: 70.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if any persons, other than those officially employed at the meeting of the League of Nations at Geneva, are in receipt of certain expenses at the cost of the British taxpayer; and, if so, will he state their number, total cost, and the reason for this expenditure?

Mr. HARMSWORTH: I am not aware that there are any such persons.

Oral Answers to Questions — ALLOTMENTS (TOTTENHAM).

Major MALONE: 75.
asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agri-
culture whether he is aware that allotment holders on land acquired under the Cultivation of Lands Order at Vale Road, Tottenham, were removed on 24th November, 1919, as it was stated that building would take place about 29th November, 1919, and compensation out of public funds was paid by the Ministry; whether this land is still vacant; why the Ministry's Regulation of 23rd May, 1919, providing that if building does not take place within a month the land may be re-entered for allotments, was not carried into effect; and what action he proposes to take in this case?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of AGRICULTURE (Sir Arthur Boscawen): In answer to the first part of the question. I am aware that the facts are substantially as stated. When possession of the land was given up and compensation was paid, it was understood that building operations would be commenced immediately, but subsequently, owing to different arrangements by the contracting parties, the land was put up for sale, and arrangements are now nearly completed. In the Circular of 23rd May last the Council were invited to consider whether they should, in the event of building operations not being commenced within one month of possession, exercise their compulsory powers for the acquisition of land. The Council did not, apparently, consider such action desirable in this case, and, in view of the fact that building will shortly commence, the Ministry does not feel justified in urging them to take any action at the present time.

Oral Answers to Questions — ROYAL ARMY ORDNANCE DEPOT, QUEDGLEY.

Mr. WIGNALL: 83.
asked the Minister of Labour whether the workpeople employed at the Quedgley factory, Gloucester, wore paid upon conditions following the awards and agreements for the chemical trade; whether application was made for the last increase accorded to this trade to the representative in charge of the factory in June, 1920; whether the War Office had instructed their Department, without communicating to the workpeople, not to pay in accordance with such decisions, as had hitherto been the practice; whether he was communicated with by the workpeople's
representative on 16th October; whether the War Office was communicated with by the Ministry of Labour on the 19th October; whether the Ministry of Labour again made an effort to get a reply on the 11th November; whether he is aware that no reply has yet been received by the workpeople or their representative; and whether he will now take steps to secure the payment of the amounts due to the workpeople in this factory in accordance with the agreement arrived at with the Department to pay the wages to the workpeople in this factory in accordance with the chemical trade decisions?

Sir A. WILLIAMSON: I have been asked to reply to this question, which is understood to relate to workmen of the Royal Army Ordnance Depot. On the information before the Department these workmen would not appear to be employed under conditions requiring the Department to observe the awards and agreements of the chemical trade, whatever may have been the position when the Quedgley factory as a whole was a productive unit. Further inquiries upon certain aspects of the matter are in progress, in view of a recent application from the Dock, Wharf, Riverside, and General Workers' Union.

Mr. WIGNALL: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that up to June of last year all the awards for the chemical trade were applied to these men, and why has there been a change in the conduct of the management towards the men since June in not acknowledging their applications?

Sir A. WILLIAMSON: I am not able to answer that question without notice. If he will give me notice I will ascertain. There has, no doubt, been a change.

Oral Answers to Questions — EDUCATION.

"HYGIENE OF FOOD AND DRINK."

Colonel Sir A. HOLBROOK: 90.
asked the President of the Board of Education whether he took any steps to obtain impartial advice before issuing, as an official publication of the Board of Education, a book entitled "Hygiene of Food and Drink: Syllabus and Lessons for Use in Schools, and Notes for the Assistance of Teachers "; and whether, as this book takes a biassed view of a very controversial question, he will either
withdraw it or adequately revise the syllabus?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of EDUCATION (Mr. Herbert Lewis): The syllabus in question was submitted, while still in draft, to a number of distinguished physiologists for their observations and suggestions. I cannot admit that the syllabus is biased. It represents ascertained facts or conclusions from them. Since 1909, when the part relating to alcohol was first published in substantially its present form, the Board have received very little general criticism and practically no specific criticism of its contents. Any specific criticisms will be carefully considered on their merits, but I certainly do not propose to withdraw the syllabus.

Colonel NEWMAN: Does the right hon. Gentleman stand by all the statements in that syllabus?

Mr. LEWIS: I have already said that any criticisms of the circular will be most carefully considered.

Viscountess ASTOR: Will the right hon. Gentleman consider where the criticisms come from? I think" the right hon. Gentleman will find that the only criticisms come from the trade. [HON. MEMBERS: "No!"]

Sir A. HOLBROOK: I wish to say that I have no connection whatever with the trade referred to by the hon. Member for Plymouth.

Mr. SEDDON: Can we have, a syllabus sent to each Member of the House of Commons in order that hon. Members may see what is in it?

Mr. LEWIS: It is available to every Member of the House?

Mr. DOYLE: 91.
asked the President of the Board of Education whether his attention has been called to a syllabus of lessons for use in schools entitled Hygiene of Food and Drink; who is responsible for its introduction; whether he is satisfied as to the accuracy of the> statistics quoted; whether any of the statements contained therein are controversial or debatable; and, if so, will he authorise the withdrawal of the pamphlet?

Mr. LEWIS: Yes, Sir; my right hon. Friend authorised the revision and expansion of the Board's temperance
syllabus of 1909 so as to bring the matter contained in it up to date and in accord with present scientific knowledge on the subject of food and drink. Much care was exercised in the preparation of the syllabus to ensure that all statistics quoted should be accurate, but if the hon. Member has reason to doubt them, I will gladly consider specific suggestions for their correction. As regards the last part of the question, I may refer the hon. Member to the answer given to the hon. Baronet the Member for Nottingham East on 25th October. I do not propose to withdraw the syllabus.

Colonel NEWMAN: Will the right hon. Gentleman say if the ratepayer or the taxpayer pays for this syllabus?

Mr. LEWIS: Neither the ratepayer nor the taxpayer pays for it. It is issued at a price which covers not only the cost of publication, but also the cost of distribution.

Colonel NEWMAN: Does the schoolmaster pay for it?

Major NALL: On what authority does the Department publish a syllabus which is used for a partisan propaganda?

Mr. LEWIS: I cannot admit that there is any partisan propaganda in it.

Major G. HAMILTON: If neither "the ratepayer nor the taxpayer pays for it, upon whom does the cost fall when a public elementary school uses it?

Mr. LEWIS: Perhaps I ought to amend my answer. When a local authority purchases a number of copies it naturally pays for them through the Stationery Office and, therefore, to that extent the ratepayer is chargeable. What I had in mind was that no charge falls upon the taxpayer.

Sir H. CRAIK: Is it not the case that a similar syllabus and papers have been considered previously by the Education Department and have not been approved?

Mr. LEWIS: I am not aware of that. The syllabus, so far as it relates to drink, is substantially in the same form as that in which it has appeared since the year 1908. [HON. MEMBERS: "No!"] It is practically the same.

Sir H. CRAIK: Previous to 1908 was not such a syllabus as this turned down?

Mr. LEWIS: We are now living in the year 1920.

Mr. DOYLE: Is the right hon. Gentleman satisfied that all the statements in the syllabus are correct?

Mr. LEWIS: As far as I am aware all the statements contained in the syllabus are correct. As I have already said, if any hon. Member has any specific suggestions or criticisms to offer they will be carefully considered.

Oral Answers to Questions — REGISTRARS (SCOTLAND).

Mr. WILLIAM GRAHAM: 96.
asked the Secretary for Scotland whether his attention has been directed to the fact that, in spite of the terms of the circular issued by the Scottish Office directing the attention of local authorities to the remuneration of registrars in Scotland, and the advisability of considering increases in fees or salaries, there are still many country registrars who are being paid in accordance with the scale incorporated in the Registration Act of 1854; and whether, seeing that these officials are paid in terms of an Act nearly 70 years old, and having regard to the great rise in prices since that date, he will press the local authorities concerned to offer reasonable remuneration, in the light of present-day circumstances, for this work?

The SECRETARY for SCOTLAND (Mr. Munro): When the circular referred to was issued by the Registrar-General's Department last March about 200 registrars out of a total of over 1,000 were paid by fees in accordance with the scale to which the hon. Member alludes. Out of the 200, however, about one-half received a further sum supplementing the scale. The records of the Registrar-General's Department show that, after the issue of the circular, increases of remuneration were granted to registrars in numerous cases. My information does not indicate how far country registrars paid solely by fees have benefitted by such increases. I am glad, however, to take this opportunity of repeating the suggestion that local authorities should consider the remuneration of registrars in the light of present conditions if they have not already done so.

Oral Answers to Questions — HONG KONG.

Mr. BOTTOMLEY: 98.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether any steps have yet been taken to secure the registration and inspection of purchased girls and children in Hong Kong; and whether His Majesty's Government proposes to abolish altogether the traffic in human life at present being carried on in that colony?

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for the COLONIES (Lieut. - Colonel Amery): I would refer the hon. Member to the reply given on the 4th November to questions on the subject by the hon. Member for Poplar South and the hon. Member for Spen Valley.

Major NALL: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that this answer was very unsatisfactory to those people who have information on this matter, and will he make inquiry into the allegation that slavery is carried on under British rule?

Lieut.-Colonel AMERY: I have made full inquiry. There is no slavery carried on.

Oral Answers to Questions — BECHUANALAND POLICE.

Mr. BOTTOMLEY: 99.
asked the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he has received a petition through the High Commissioner for South Africa from the warrant officers, non-commissioned officers and men of the Bechuanaland police relative to relief in the matter of pay: and, if so, does he propose to take any steps regarding the same, either by the appointment of a commission of inquiry similar to that granted to the Union of South Africa police and the British South Africa police?

Lieut.-Colonel AMERY: The petition has been received. Both the Resident Commissioner and the High Commissioner are of the opinion that in the present financial position of the Protectorate the increases of pay requested cannot be sanctioned, and the Secretary of State has accepted this view. It is not proposed to appoint a commission of inquiry, but the question of the pay of the force will receive further consideration in connection with the question now under examination locally of reorganising the force on a new basis. I may add that
since the petition was drawn up two increases of War bonus have been sanctioned.

Oral Answers to Questions — PLYMOUTH MURDER (SENTENCE OF DEATH).

Mr. BOTTOMLEY: (by Private Notice) asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether Cyril Victor Tennyson Saunders, who joined the Army at the age of 15 years during the War, is now lying under sentence of death at Exeter for the murder of a young cousin in September last; whether the sentence is due to be carried out to-morrow; whether shortly before the crime Saunders met with a serious accident to his head, necessitating his detention in hospital for a considerable period; whether a medical man of prominence in mental cases at the trial expressed the view that at the time Saunders, as a result of the accident, was not responsible; whether a petition for his reprieve has been received signed by nearly 150,000 persons: and whether, under these circumstances, he will order a postponement of the execution pending an inquiry by mental experts into the state of mind of this young soldier, who, until after his accident, never had any black mark against his name?

Mr. SHORTT: I cannot accept the statement of facts of my hon. Friend. I have given the most careful and anxious consideration to the case, and have consulted everybody—experts as well as the learned Judge—and I can see no ground at all for interference.

Mr. BOTTOMLEY: Does the right hon. Gentleman say that since the conviction and sentence of this young soldier there has been any examination of him by a mental expert?

Mr. SHORTT: There is no suggestion and never has been that an examination of the prisoner by a mental expert would be of any value.

Mr. BOTTOMLEY: Is not the right hon. Gentleman aware that a medical man—an authority on lunacy—swore at at the trial that, in his opinion, this man was not responsible for his action, and that it is only because of the poverty of his parents he cannot appeal? Will he therefore have him examined by a medical expert?

Mr. SHORTT: I must decline to answer any further question.

At end of Questions—

Mr. BOTTOMLEY: rose—

Mr. SPEAKER: With regard to the Motion for Adjournment which I understand the hon. Member was proposing to make, I must point out that I could not accept such a Motion. It would be an interference with the ordinary administration of the course of justice. It has been laid down on previous occasions in this House that no Motion for the Adjournment could be accepted in such a case.

Mr. BOTTOMLEY: I beg to give notice that, when the Home Secretary's salary next comes up for discussion, I shall move that he is utterly unfit for his office.

Oral Answers to Questions — HOUSE OF COMMONS (PUBLIC GALLERIES).

Mr. W. THORNE: Can you, Mr. Speaker, give us any reason for the Gallery being closed to the public?

Mr. SPEAKER: I shall be glad to answer that question, but I have first a long list of Private Notice questions to deal with.

At the end of Questions—

Mr. THORNE: May I now put my question, Mr. Speaker, as to whether you can give the reason why the galleries are closed to the public?

Mr. SPEAKER: I have been in consultation with the Chief Commissioner of Police to-day, and, in consequence of information which I received from him, I thought it desirable to close all the Galleries, which are open now to the general public.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.

Sir D. MACLEAN: Can the Leader of the House say what business it is proposed to take to-day and on Thursday?

4.0 P.M.

Mr. BONAR LAW (Leader of the House): To-day we hope to get the first three Orders—Women, Young Persons,' and Children (Employment) Bill. Report; Criminal Injuries (Ireland)
Bill, Report; and Gold and Silver (Export, Control, etc.) Bill, Second Reading—and also, if time permits, Numbers 5 and 6—Isle of Man (Customs) Bill, Second Reading: and Public Works Loans Bill, Second Reading. To-morrow we shall take the Second Reading of the Expiring Laws Continuance Bill and the subsequent stages of the Bills taken to-day. On Wednesday we shall take the Civil Service Supplementary Estimates With regard to Thursday, we had proposed, provisionally, that we should have the Financial Debate, but it is necessary to get the Roads Bill through at once, and we therefore propose to take that measure on Thursday. In that case, we propose to have the financial discussion next week, and I venture to hope that those who are impugning the financial policy of the Government so loudly outside will take the opportunity of putting a Motion on the Paper.

Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: We always do.

Mr. HOGGE: Do I understand that the Government do not propose to take any new Bills?

Mr. BONAR LAW: I think not.

Lieut.-Colonel MURRAY: Do we understand that it is the intention to carry the Roads Bill through all its stages before Christmas?

Mr. BONAR LAW: Yes.

Lieut.-Colonel MURRAY: Through the other House too?

Mr. BONAR LAW: We hope so, Perhaps my hon. and gallant Friend does not understand the Bill. I understand that it is merely an administrative Bill to enable the decision come to on the Budget to be carried into effect.

Lieut.-Colonel MURRAY: It is more than that.

Sir J. REMNANT: Can the right hon. Gentleman say how long he expects the Session to last?

Mr. BONAR LAW: I can give my hopes. I hope that it will finish before Christmas.

NEW MEMBER SWORN.

Sir CHARLES VERE FERRERS TOWXSHEND, K.C.B. D.S.O., for the County of Salop (the Wrekin Division).

Orders of the Day — WOMEN, YOUNG PERSONS, AND CHILDREN (EMPLOYMENT) BILL

Order read for resuming Adjourned Debate on new Clause proposed (20th November) on consideration of Bill, as amended (in the Standing Committee).

NEW CLAUSE.—(Employment of women and young persons in shifts.)

"(1) The Secretary of State may, subject to the provisions of this Section, make Orders authorising the employment of women and young persons of the age of sixteen years and upwards in any factory or workshop at any time between the hours of six in the morning and ten in the evening on any weekday except Saturday, and between the hours of six in the morning and two in the afternoon on Saturday, in shifts averaging for each shift not more than eight hours per day.

(2) An Order under this Section may be made in respect of any specified factory or workshop, or in respect of any class or group of factories or workshops, and shall be subject to such conditions as the Secretary of State may consider necessary for the purpose of safeguarding the welfare and interests of the persons employed in pursuance of the Order, and shall include a condition empowering the Secretary of State to revoke the Order in the event of noncompliance with the conditions thereof, or in the event of it appearing to the Secretary of State that abuses of any description have arisen out of the employment of any persons in pursuance of the Order.

(3) The Secretary of State may by Order direct that such conditions as he may consider necessary for the purpose of safeguarding the welfare and interests of the persons employed shall apply to the employment in day shifts of young persons who may lawfully be so employed under the provisions of the Factory and Workshops Acts, 1901 to 1911.

(4) Notwithstanding anything in this Section an Order under this Section may permit the employment in any factory or workshop in such shifts as aforesaid of young persons under the age of sixteen years who are at the commencement of this Act so employed in that factory or workshop.

(5) If the conditions imposed by any Order made under this Section are not complied with the factory or workshop shall be deemed not to be kept in conformity with the Factory and Workshop Act, 1901.

(6) This Section shall remain in force for a period of five years from the commencement of this Act and no longer, and any Order made under this Section shall, unless previously revoked by the Secretary of
State in pursuance of his powers under this Section, remain in force for a like period."—[Captain Bowyer.]

Motion made, and Question proposed (26th November), "That the Clause be read a Second time."—[Captain Bowyer.]

Question again proposed, "That the Clause be read a Second time."

Mr. BARTLEY DENNISS: I intend to vote against this Clause, but for many reasons I cannot give a silent vote. In the first place, the new Clause is very bad in principle, and, secondly, the constituency which I represent and which may be affected by it, through all the organisations which represent the industries that are carried on there, object to it in toto. The new Clause contains the most objectionable features. It authorises the working of the two-shift system, and leaves the decision of that question at the absolute discretion of the Home Secretary, which really means the discretion of a Government Department. When once the Order has been made, it is not revocable for five years. It is irrevocable as long as the conditions under which it is granted are fulfilled. Thirdly, the Clause is so sweeping in its terms that it includes every industry in the country where factories or workshops are in existence. It also allows an Order to be made in respect of a single factory or mill, or any group of factories or workshops. The objects of it are perfectly clear from the speeches that have been made by the Home Secretary and the Chairman of the Departmental Committee which he set up. They are limited in character to two sets of industries. One are called seasonal industries. Possibly there might be a case made out for such industries. Last Friday the Chairman of the Departmental Committee stated that the only cases where this Clause would be likely to be used, or where two shifts would be likely to be put into operation, were seasonal industries, and where it was absolutely essential for the life of the industry that the fullest output should be maintained from the machinery, and where it would be impossible for the industry to continue in existence without the two-shift system. That is an exceedingly limited object.
I object that the Clause itself is absolutely unlimited and applies to every industry where factories or workshops are in existence. It therefore applies to the
great textile industry, and more especially to the cotton industry, which is the staple industry of the Constituency which I represent. The Clause being unlimited, the industry may be exposed at some time to a reversion to the discarded and bad principle of working women and young girls being allowed to go to work at six o'clock in the morning on one shift and being kept at work till ten o'clock at night on the other shift. If the object be so limited as stated by the Chairman of the Departmental Committee, why do they include all industries, and especially those big industries which I have mentioned? Is it because the Government have not the time or will not take the trouble to limit the Clause to industries to which it will be applied, or is it merely that they wish to draw into their net some day or other these great industries, and to resume the objectionable practice of early working in the factories? The Departmental Committee, we were told by its Chairman last Friday, absolutely rejected the idea that the textile industry and the cotton industry would be included in practice. He said that it was not a system which would cover the whole land. It was not to be applied to Lancashire and Yorkshire. The Home Secretary also stated that the Committee ignored the question of the cotton industry in Lancashire, because they were distinctly told that the cotton industry did not want the system. As I understand it now, the Home Secretary, in the course of his speech, admitted that it had been already introduced into some factories in the cotton industry. He mentioned a doubling mill, and I understand that there are other mills in the Constituency of my hon. Friend opposite which are working the two-shift system.
The chairman of the Departmental Committee and the right hon. Gentleman himself having said that, of course it will not apply to the cotton industry in Lancashire. Why, then was the new Clause drawn so wide as to include the cotton industry as well as the woollen industry and every other industry? I had hoped and believed that the days of early working in the morning before breakfast as far as the cotton industry was concerned had come to an end. Certainly it was one of the worst systems that could be devised with regard to the comfort and health of the people. See what it means. Women who have babies and children of three or four years of age,
whom they cannot leave in the home, have to get up at 5 o'clock in the morning and take them round to a neighbour's house or to a place where they can be taken care of whilst they go to work themselves. The children cannot get their breakfast properly. I suppose they are given it at the place where they are left for the day. The mother gets no breakfast. She gets nothing till 8 o'clock and has to work for two hours before. Then on the alternative week when she works till 10 o'clock she has to get home and get supper at 11 o'clock at night.
I have been through two General Elections and a by-election in Oldham during the last ten or eleven years, each time in the winter, and I know what it means. The climate of Oldham is a very severe one. The town hall is more than 600 ft. above the level of the sea. Then it rises right to the Yorkshire moors to a height of 900 ft., and the moors themselves close by go to 1,000 or 1,200 ft. The air is bleak in the extreme. The Postmaster-General knows very well how severe the weather is there, for every winter without exception the whole of the telegraph poles in that district are blown down. Just recently he has been obliged to put a large number of telegraph wires underground because every winter the poles are blown down. For women to be exposed to such weather and to take their children out in such weather at 6 o'clock in the morning is a thing which this House should not permit. On the alternate weeks these women and young girls would be obliged to work till 10 o'clock at night and go home to their evening meal between 10 and 11. That is destructive altogether of the amenities of home life. It is destructive of comfort and it must be injurious to health. In the Departmental Report it is said the doctors say that sort of thing is not injurious to health. If that is their opinion it is contrary to my experience. The Clause may be useful and necessary in seasonal occupations where machinery has to be continuously running, but it should be strictly limited to that and should not be drawn so widely as to include in it those great industries which do not require it. The principle of the Clause which was in the original Bill was defeated in Committee by 22 to 5. It is an astonishing thing to me that the new Clause should be put down in the name of a private Member. It has manifestly been drawn by the Government draughtsman, and the hon.
and gallant Gentleman is simply made a stalking horse for the Government. Why is it? Is the Government afraid of being defeated on it, and have they only dared to risk putting it down in the name of a private Member? It looks very like it to me.

Captain BOWYER: I feel called on to reply to the hon. Member who says I am a stalking horse for the Government. There is not a word of truth in it. I have had two Clauses on the Order Paper for months past, and when the Committee reported the Clause was taken, of course with outside help as regards draftsmanship, from the Report of the Departmental Committee, and is now on the Order Paper in that form.

Mr. DENNISS: I withdraw my remarks and apologise for saying my hon and gallant Friend was the stalking horse of the Government. Certainly it looked to me as if he were. I must congratulate him on the excellent way the Clause is drawn. It looked to me like a Government production. What I cannot understand is why, when the Government put a Clause in the Bill which is defeated in Committee, they do not themselves put down a new Clause in their own name, so that they will be able to bear the consequences if they are defeated. Another reason why I object to the new Clause is because it makes the Home Secretary the absolute judge whether it shall be enforced in any particular industry. There is no reason why the Home Secretary should not decide against the opinions of the workers in the industry and against the trade unions who represent them. My hon. and gallant Friend on Friday said the Women's Trade Union League, the National Federation of Women Workers, and the Amalgamated Union of Co-operative and Commercial employés and Allied Workers
gave evidence before the Select Committee as to the discomfort and ill-health which must be caused to the workers under the two-shift system. Therefore, it cannot be said that the Members of the Select Committee came to their conclusions without having heard evidence from organisations upon which the Labour party rely in the document which they have issued against the two-shift system.—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 26th November, 1920; col. 847; Vol. 135.]
They did hear the evidence, and it was all one way, and they flew in the face of
it and brought up recommendations and a report absolutely contradictory of the evidence.
The hon. Member (Mr. Bell) said what happened was this. They heard Miss Simmonds, who gave evidence for the National Federation of Women Workers, and three girls were brought by their employers to give evidence on the other side. They were not selected by their fellow workers. They were picked out by the management and the Departmental Committee decided to accept their evidence and reject the evidence of all these associations which was given to the contrary. The Home Secretary may do that at any time. Of course we cannot always have the same Home Secretary. I have many years' knowledge and experience of him and have the greatest opinion of his character and ability, but he will not be Home Secretary for ever. He is here to-day and will perhaps be gone tomorrow—not to Heaven I hope, but he may go to the Exchequer or to the Judicial Bench, which I trust he will adorn when he gets there for very many years. But wc may have a Home Secretary like some Ministers we have had in my experience who may not take the judicial, impartial view which he would be likely to take. We may have him acting exactly as this Committee acted. Although it was presided over by one of His Majesty's Counsel learned in the law, it seemed to fly in the face of all the evidence. That is why I object to the Home Secretary being absolute in the matter, granting an order which he cannot himself revoke for five years, so long as the conditions on which the order is made are complied with, and leally in fact the order is not made by him at all, but by the Departmental officials, who make the inquiry, ascertain I'll the facts and influence the mind of the Home Secretary, against whom there is no appeal. Even a judge has the check of a jury, and when he sits without a jury he has the check of the Court of Appeal over him. The Home Secretary has nothing of the kind. I read in the "Times" on Friday of a learned judge at a public dinner who objected to a great many things the Government is doing at present with regard to disregarding the authority of the Courts of law and preventing suitors from having their grievances remedied. He more particularly
referred to the way in which private individuals and private businesses are interfered with by departmental regulations and departmental autocracy. I feel under these circumstances that I am entitled to protest against it. I cannot understand how it would be possible to work the two-shift system in the cotton trade.

Mr. SEDDON: They did not ask for it.

Mr. DENNISS: Then why put it in the Clause?

Captain BOWYER: It is not.

Mr. DENNISS: The Clause includes every factory and workshop, and all cotton mills are factories. It is no use saying it is not in the Clause. If the Home Secretary will add words to it saying that no further order shall be made in the cotton industry without the consent of the persons employed in it, of course my opposition will be withdrawn. I cannot sec how the two-shift system could be worked in the cotton trade without nearly doubling the number of operatives. Of course the operatives in the cotton trade are skilled. The women do not work alone and the mills cannot be run if the men are not there as well as the women. The women are skilled and the men are skilled. It takes years to learn their business. I should think it must give a very great advantage indeed to any particular mill owner—and the Clause contemplates that orders may be made in favour of a particular mill, which will be of great benefit to the mill owner—to have the two-shift system over the man who has not got it. He will have double the number of employés, he will produce double the quantity of yarn with the same building and the same machinery, and will be put in a very favourable position with regard to his competitors. The effect of the bad times we are having, and short time—we are threatened with a three-days week—will be very disastrous, and there will be more people unemployed. But that is not the principal reason why I object to the Clause. These women have to take their babies out of the house at 5 o'clock in the morning in the terrible climate of Oldham and the other Lancashire towns without any breakfast, and it is 8 o'clock before they get anything themselves, and the fact of their being out after 10 o'clock at night and getting their meals at work is destructive of home life, comfort and
health. I shall oppose the Clause whenever I have an opportunity of doing so.

Mr. MYERS: On Friday afternoon the Home Secretary asked that the Division should be taken on this Clause, and I have no doubt that he would have received a substantial majority in the Division Lobby. I suppose he will have a substantial majority when the vote is taken to-day. That fact makes no contribution whatever to the virtue or otherwise of the proposal before the House. Many things that were looked upon as undesirable in pre-War days have been found to be beneficial owing to the practice during the War period and in some measure they ought to be extended into the operations of peace time; but in so far as it is proposed to put this particular Clause into operation upon that basis it cannot be sustained. It may have acted satisfactorily during the War, but to put it into operation now is reactionary and retrograde from every point of view. The hon. and gallant Member for Buckingham (Captain Bowyer) has conceded the point that this Clause was drafted after he had seen the Report of the Departmental Committee. It is difficult to understand how any hon. Member reading the Report of that Committee can justify a Clause of this character. The Report is contradictory. The evidence is peculiarly inconclusive, and signs are not wanting that even the Committee was not sure of its own mind upon the question.
On the last page of the Committee's Report the shortage of skilled male labour was put forward as one justification why this proposal should be put into operation. We have also the intimation that applications have continually been reaching the Home Office from manufacturers who say they desire to employ women on the lines of peace-time production. Further, the Committee suggests that the two-shift system would absorb surplus women labour. None of these conditions hang together. One might be justifiable, but it has no relationship to some of the other suggestions put forward. The Committee admits that where skilled women labour has been employed on war-time operations there is no guarantee whatever that the same skilled women labour can be absorbed in other industries in the same neighbourhood, for the simple reason that industries
that might have taken them on are not to be found in the particular locality where they were employed on War-time work. Even if these things were admitted, from the point of view of expediency and convenience our opposition would still be directed against this Clause. The hon. Member for Oldham (Mr. Bartley Denniss) has touched upon one or two of the main objections from the human point of view. After many years of agitation we all understood that the six o'clock morning start had been abandoned with the mutual approval and agreement of both employer and employed, and that we should never go back to that particular operation. This Clause would stand condemned from that point of view alone if there were no others to be advanced; but when it becomes a question of applying the early morning start to the two-shift system, our objections are infinitely more powerful.
Those of us who have been called upon in days gone by to go to our work at six o'clock in the morning know that one of the initial difficulties of that hour is that those who leave home in the morning under pressure of having to be there when the buzzer goes or the bell rings do so with scarcely any food, and sometimes without any food. We worked for two hours or so, and then" the breakfast time came round. Therefore, the trouble was not very great and severe; but under the two-shift system these people would only have fifteen minutes or half an hour for their meal after four hours' work had been done. Therefore, the fact that they would have to start work at six o'clock in the morning and go on for four hours necessitates their being fortified in the first instance with all the physical sustenance that they can get hold of in order to enable them to carry out their work for that long time. We all know what the shift system moans. You have to work at high pressure all the time, and that means a prompt start and working up to the last moment. If under the intensity of that work any cases occur, as they would occur, where persons had to go to their employment without food, the disadvantages to their physical fitness would be very pronounced from every point of view. There is also the general question of the undesirability of the six o'clock start in any circumstances. Assuming the shift system, to be in operation and the women going to work at six
o'clock and coming home at two, what is likely to happen in the working class, household when the woman gets home in the afternoon? She has to go on with her domestic duties from three o'clock until bedtime. Under these conditions we are going to bring the women workers of the country practically into the slavedom of days gone by.
I am not convinced that we should prevent unemployment by this two-shift system. I agree with the hon. Member for Oldham that it will intensify unemployment. Just as we multiply the number of hands in a particular industry, although they may get along in normal conditions, as soon as exceptional times arrive and anything in the nature of depression of trade occurs and orders drop off the proportionate number of unemployed persons must inevitably be greater, having regard to the fact that we are recruiting greater numbers of people into the industry. There is a very formidable objection to this Clause from the point of view of the health of the worker. The Clause provides for continuous working from six o'clock in the morning until ten o'clock at night. No human being ought to be called upon to work in any factory, under any conditions, where work goes on continuously for sixteen hours. There ought to be a break between the two shifts in order to give the factory a chance of sweetening and of being ventilated and made more tolerable from the sanitary point of view. Any factory which is called upon to follow the ordinary operations for sixteen hours must inevitably operate to the disadvantage of the health of the workers who are engaged in that particular trade. If the other conditions were acceptable that condition would become an objection of the first magnitude. We are told in the report of the Committee that this proposal is made necessary because there is a lack of plant and buildings. That argument is exceedingly loose. We are going to put the necessity for bricks and mortar before the defect that must arise to the human factor in industry. It has always been so. In industry in this country the bricks and mortar have always been put before the human factor. The machine has always been more valuable than the human being, and we protest that a reactionary and retrograde proposal of this character should be enacted simply
because the bricks and mortar are not available for carrying on the industry.
There is another evil which operates against the community. One of the principal objections in night work in factories comes from the public point of view. It satisfies the manufacturer; he gets two days' production instead of one. Instead of having two mills he uses one, double time, but he only pays the rates for one. He gets the work of two factories out of one, and he meets his obligation to the local authority and to the State in respect of one factory, and just in proportion as he extends working in the night does the owner of the factory release himself to a certain extent of the responsibilities to the community and the State. One point in the Committee s Report upon which the greatest stress is laid to justify this Clause relates to the glass trade. It brings in the glass trade somewhat voluminously, in comparison with its references to other trades. If any hon. Member knows anything about the glass trade he would not subscribe to this proposal. It has been my privilege or my misfortune—it depends from which angle it is viewed—to serve 15 years of my life inside a glass factory, both in my boyhood and as an adult. From the age of 15 to the age of 31 I was employed in the production of glass bottles, and I have sufficient confidence in the judgment of hon. Members to know that if they understood the operations in side a glass factory they would not subscribe to the conditions of this Clause being applied there, at least in one particular. There can be no justification, and I say it without qualification or reservation, for a female, young or old. working inside a glass factory. No women ought to be employed in the production of glassware. Irrespective of age, I would wipe that out. There is something to be said for the employment of youths between the ages of 16 and 18 in the glass trade and other industries of a continuous nature. Where the furnaces are continuous and have to be fed the shift system is almost essential; but for industries of this character special Regulations should be made, and we should not hang upon these trades of a continuous character general legislation applied to industries of every kind. Even if there is something to be said for the glass trade and similar undertakings, it does not prove the justification for this Clause, but rather the necessity for special legislation
to deal with particular industries. Regulations could very well be made to satisfy the people in those particular occupations.
If we accept every virtue that is put forward by the Departmental Committee, and agree that their conclusions are sound, how far are we entitled to move in the direction of extending the employment of women while there are so-many unemployed men? I believe in. the equality of the sexes, both economically and politically, and in the days when these things were not looked upon: with favour I stood on a box at the street corner advocating the claims of women. Making due allowance for that, we have the fact before us of so many unemployed men walking the streets unable to get employment. We have had a statement to-day that there are 3 per cent, of unemployed according to the registers of the Labour Exchanges, and before we extend a principle of this kind we might move in the direction of finding employment for the able-bodied men who want it. Whenever it is desired to do anything derogatory to labour, it is always said that there is some support of labour for it. On this occasion we are told that the proposal put forward has the support of certain phases of the Labour and industrial movement. I have in my hand a joint memorandum detailing objections to this Clause. It is under the auspices of the Women's Trade Union League, the Women's Co-operative Guild, the Railway Women's Guild, the National Federation of Women Workers, the Railway Clerks' Association, the Amalgamated Union of Co-operative and Commercial Employés, the Association of Women Clerks and Secretaries, and several other organisations which include women in their membership.

Captain BOWYER: Is that the memorandum headed The Labour Party?

Mr. MYERS: Yes. In addition, I have just had handed to me this telegram, which only reached us to-day:
Chairman of the Labour party. Pottery Workers' Society, representing 50,000 operatives, majority women and young persons, ask you to vote against two-shift Bill, believing same to endanger child life, also destroy home life and health of pottery workers owing to shops not being cleaned,. with the result terrible accumulation of
dust. Also applies to other workers. The Bill is a step backwards and a lever to bring cheap labour into the market. The strong may fight. The weakest will go to the wall if the Bill passes.
That emphasises the general position which we on these Benches present. The Clause will impose definite limitations upon the education of the young people of the country and will seriously interfere with the domestic home life of the community. The evidence on which the Committee had reported is contradictory. The Committee itself is uncertain as to the advantages which the proposal will bring, and, taking the Report as a whole, it does not justif5' legislation of this reactionary and retrograde character.

Sir WALTER DE FRECE: I claim the indulgence of the House for the few words which I have to say. I have had the opportunity during the week-end of visiting my constituency. My constituents are mostly mill workers, and I have come back fortified with their views, and also with my own feeling of opposition to this proposal strengthened. My own view was that this particular arrangement of the two-shift system was a war-time arrangement. We were told that it only applied during the War, and there is very strong feeling in the country that not only this particular Clause, but other Clauses in other Bills which are being introduced, are an attempt to perpetuate what we were told were simply war measures for a limited period. I shall oppose this Clause, first, from the humane point of view. I feel that the women who are asked to work these two shifts will be much better employed in endeavouring to cultivate the home life which is essential for the future prosperity of this country. If they have to work in two shifts the children, to whom we are looking forward in the future, will miss the mother's care which is necessary. What are to be the domestic relationships of a family where one portion of the family works the first shift and the other the second shift? They would never meet. There would be no domesticity and no control by the mother. In view of the fact that the change suggested is for a trial period of five years, may I mention that if the Clause became law, and the workpeople even desired it, it could not become 'operative in the cotton business for some years, because I am told that, even in
normal times, for the last twelve years there has been a shortage of over 500 skilled persons in the small constituency which I represent, and I believe that it is the case also in other towns that there has been a shortage of skilled labour. Consequently, it would be folly to support a Clause having for its object the introduction of the two-shift system when there are not sufficient skilled workers in the particular trade even for one shift in various towns. I deal with the cotton trade because I know the workers' point of view only in that trade. For reasons connected with its effect on children and education, they are further opposed to this Clause, and I imagine that the same would apply in all other trades. I believe that it will be better for the children not to have this Clause, and for that reason also I oppose it.

Major HILLS: I am sure that I am expressing the opinion of the whole House when I congratulate my hon. Friend who has just spoken, I believe for the first time in this House. We welcome his speech, and I am sure that he will be an ornament to our Debates. I am sure that the hon. Member and the two preceding speakers will excuse me if I do not argue the case for the two-shift system. It was argued on Friday in a Debate which was on a very high level, and it was very completely thrashed out. I think that the bulk of the opposition came from hon. Members who represent textile districts. I can reassure their minds. No Home Secretary would be so idiotic as to attempt to force upon the textile trade the two-shift system unless they asked for it. For that reason I think that all those doubts can be put at rest. I support the two-shift system for the simple reason that it would tend to reduce hours. The House must not forget that the legal hours in non-textile factories now are 60 hours a week. By this Bill we shall get a very substantial reduction. A great deal of the opposition to this Bill has centred round the early hour of starting and the late hour of finishing the two shifts. I have a great deal of sympathy with that view. I would remind the House of the position which this country has taken up with regard to night-work for women.
First of all by our law as it stands at present any work after nine o'clock at
night is night work. I think that that definition will be accepted. Therefore we are to a certain extent legalising night work for women. Twenty years ago we set to work to prohibit night work for women, and the International Labour Association in this country and other countries joined in a convention, which I think all the great nations adopted, to prohibit night work for women, and that has been the law in this country for something like 20 years, until the War came and all restrictions broke down, and women were allowed to work night shifts. I have heard no case which convinced me of the necessity of making the hour as late as ten at night or as early as six in the morning. I listened with great care to the speech of the hon. and learned Member for Bristol (Mr. Inskip), who was chairman of the Committee. It was an impartial, able, closely reasoned speech, but I thought that the weakest part of the speech was that he did not make a good case for the early start or the late ending. I read through the report carefully twice, and that seemed to me to be the case.I would suggest that if the Government accept the Clause with shorter hours, and that hon. Members who oppose it would also accept it with shorter hours, it would to a great extent meet the position. I have listened to all the speeches, and I think that most of them turn on that point. If the Government would accept the suggestion to have the starting hour seven and the finishing hour nine, there would be 14 hours which would give two shifts of seven hours each, or at any rate two shifts of 61½ hours each.The Government are not obliged to give the whole of this every time and can give less every time.But I would refer to the speech of the hon. Member for Accrington (Major Gray), which was directed almost entirely to the hour of starting, as were also some of the other speeches, and I think that if the Government would accept a limitation of from seven in the morning until nine at night it would shorten the discussion. I would respectfully appeal to the Labour party that if they can get a concession of that sort they will have done a good stroke towards shortening the hours of labour.

5.0 P.M.

Mr. A. DAVIES (Clitheroe): I associate myself with the remarks of the last speaker in reference to the very able
speech which was delivered by the hon. Member for Bristol. Perhaps I may refer to some of the points that were made by the hon. and learned Member. It has been suggested that this Clause will not apply to the cotton trade of Lancashire. If we could get a declaration to that effect from the Home Secretary, I do not suppose there would be so much opposition from the Labour Benches. Let us see what the hon. and learned Member for Central Bristol stated. Referring to the hon. Member for Royton (Mr. Sugden), he said:
My hon. Friend, who is so closely connected with the cotton industry, may be relieved to know that the Home Secretary will not force this system upon them. He will make no Order until my hon. Friend puts in an application that it may be worked in his factory.—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 26th November, 1920; col. 874, Vol. 135.]
That is the trouble. If an employer of labour makes application to have this Order made, it will be possible for the individual employer, irrespective of the industry with which he is associated, to have such an Order granted to him. If that is so, it is clear that this Clause has a wider scope than that which some hon. Members mention. I remember that when this question of the employment of women and young persons was discussed in June last, those who were opposed to it received the whole-hearted and capable support of the right hon. Member for Gorbals (Mr. G. N. Barnes) I wish he were here to participate in the Debate this afternoon. He argued very clearly that, so far as getting uniformity of industrial conditions in the different nations of the world was concerned, it was never contemplated that the two-shift system, as adumbrated in this Bill, would be a part of any national system of industry. The hon. and learned Member for Bristol said, with respect to the employment of women and young persons:
We all have our own views, I suppose, and I suppose we are all agreed that if it were possible it would be desirable to exclude women altogether, not only in their own interest, but in the interest of men, who, after all, ought to bear the great burden of industry in this country. But that is not the question.—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 26th November, 1920; Col. 875, Vol. 135.]
That really is the question. The object of this House ought to be, not to emulate a system that is likely to be injurious,
but to try to eliminate that system, and, as the hon. and learned Member said, every hon. Member in this House is anxious to see the time when the burdens of industry shall be borne by the male element of the population. What does this Bill do?It extends the facilities for employing a greater number of women and young persons. Of course, it is suggested that it is only an experiment, which is to continue for five years. But what is the assumption? If at the end of five years this Act proves to be a success it means—I am speaking economically—that it will be extended, and instead of eliminating a system which we all condemn, it will strengthen the theory that the system should be extended. Let us examine the question from the economic standpoint. It is said that the system will absorb a considerable number of our women and young persons who are out of work. It is those who work who maintain those who play, and if the women and young persons are working and the strong and able-bodied are playing, it means that, directly or indirectly, the weaker element in society will be maintaining the stronger. Therefore, this proposal is retrogressive, and I hope the Home Secretary will see his way to delete the Clause entirely. It has been stated that there are 15,000 persons engaged on this two-shift system. One of the arguments adduced by the hon. and learned Member for Bristol was that if you were to take away immediately these 15,000 persons from these night shifts it would have the effect of creating a tremendous amount of unemployment. What I suggest is that we ought to graduate our methods and step by step eliminate the employment at unearthly hours of all women and young persons.

Mr. HOPKINS: I have not the honour of being connected with the cotton trade or of coming from Lancashire, and I do not propose to dictate the industrial policy of the whole country. I can only say that in my own constituency of St. Pancras there are many small and varied manufactures where the two-shift system would be a very great blessing to the women workers and the community generally. The system was in operation for a time during the War and a great improvement took place in the homes of the people, because the women were able to earn a certain amount of money, which
went directly to the improvement of their homes and their children. If hon. Members opposite had seen, as I saw, the improvement in the children's dress, and particularly in their boots, they would not want to prevent these women from working. What these women want is, not a long day's work, for they have their home duties and their children to look after. They want to work for five or six hours a day and have the rest of the day at their own disposal. As I read the Clause, it does not mean that the hours from six to 10 o'clock are in any way compulsory. Those are the extreme limits of time during which they may be employed. There is a proposition in my constituency that women should be employed in two shifts of six hours each, and until this Bill is passed the factory will not be able to work. I earnestly hope that the Clause will be passed.

Mr. SEXTON: On principle, I am entirely opposed to the employment of women and young persons under any conditions and in any industry, either by day or night. To that principle I have always subscribed and I can see no reason to change my opinion now. Unfortunately, however, we have for decades, been living under economic conditions, whereby both women and young persons have been employed in industry, and it will take some time, by some method of evolution, to get out of that position. What I am concerned about in this Bill is the general application of this Clause. In some industries to-day there is no-doubt that the principle of a two-shift system for young persons has some justification from an economic point of view. The most remarkable point in his discussion is the conversion of the hon. Member for Hanley (Mr. Seddon) to the principle of the employment of women. I do not say it out of any disrespect to him, but I can remember the time, and that not very long ago, when he maintained a strong and vigorous opinion in the opposite direction.

Mr. SEDDON: In principle I am like the hon. Member, but I am speaking now for a trade union that is engaged in industry.

Mr. SEXTON: The Clause deals with every trade union and every organisation in the country, and that is my objection to it. I have something to do with the drawing up of this Convention. I was at
Washington when the Convention, as embodied in this Bill, was adopted. The cause of the adoption of that Convention was before us in what may be described as very vivid colours. We had the information that in India women and children were working down the mines all night, that mothers with babes at their breasts took their children down the mines and worked all night while the babes were lying on the ground, and that whole families were being employed below ground. We had also the example of Japan before us. There children went to work at 8 years of age. The Convention was adopted in the hope that we would get some international uniformity and so reduce the hours of labour for women and young persons throughout the country, at the same time placing no other country at a disadvantage. With characteristic humanity this country has taken the lead in that direction. St. Helens has been mentioned in the discussion. I know something about the glass works at St. Helens, for I started my industrial career in the glass works of that town at 9 years of age. I know what it is to work in such works as a half-timer. I worked in a 12 hours' shift, and the conditions then were terrible. That is not so to-day. Many scientific improvements have been introduced into the work, and hygiene is, so to speak, on the topmost rung of the ladder. There is one disadvantage in the case of the glass trade. Glass manufacture is a continuous process. We want some consideration given to those trades which are manufacturing under very grave disadvantages. I happen to have an interest in the industry of St. Helens, although I happen to be a Labour representative.
I may not be expressing the opinion of the party I represent, but I speak from knowledge of local facts. I have authentic information that in Belgium, in the glass trade, there is a ten-hours' day and a seven days' week, and work is continued throughout the twenty-four hours of the day. Belgium is a very considerable competitor with this country in the glass trade. Therefore to take away from the glass works of this country the advantages they have, in view of the fact that Belgium is our strongest competitor, would be to put a grave handicap on the trade. I wish that to-morrow all this employment of women and children could
be swept away entirely. I wish it was done with. I am simply pointing out the disadvantages which would accrue to a trade like the glass trade, with its nearest competitor, Belgium, if it is put at any serious disadvantage. I see that provisions are made for these particular trades. The Labour party also has an Amendment which meets the point, particularly where the application is made jointly by employers and workmen in the trade concerned. That is what has happened at St. Helens. An industrial council composed of workmen and employers in St. Helens has mutually agreed to make application for the consideration of this particular trade. While I am opposed to the wholesale application of the Clause to every industry there are cases like the one I have mentioned where it might be applied. I am looking forward to the time when even that application will be unnecessary, but in existing circumstances I think some consideration might be given to trades like those I have referred to.

Sir RYLAND ADKINS: Having read very carefully what was said on Friday, and having heard nearly all the speeches to-day, I must say I am surprised that the Government do not see their way to meet what is the very strong and genuine current of opinion as to the application of this Clause to parts of the country and certain trades. The argument that this system of two shifts should be tried and applied to seasonal and continuous trades is an argument which obviously has weight, and I can well understand the Government anxiety to have an experiment of that kind, partially tried during the War, continued for a reasonable time. But there is all the difference in the world between that argument and bringing in a Clause which legally has a universal application if and when the present Home Secretary or any successor thought fit to put it in force.

The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. Shortt): It not a compulsory Clause.

Sir R. ADKINS: The right hon. Gentleman has, quite unwittingly, I am sure, used words which in this connection are susceptible of ambiguity. This Clause enables the Home Secretary, gives permission for this system to be tried, and the application may be from persons
in a single factory or mill, whatever be the opinions, habits of tendencies of the bulk of that particular industry. My confidence in the Home Secretary almost spoils the edge of my argument, but then he will have successors to whom, as I do not know them, I am not prepared to give my confidence, and who may authorise this experiment to be carried out by a particular undertaking, which may be for the benefit of that particular undertaking but against the general tendencies and desires of persons in similar undertakings in the same area. The hon. Member for Bristol told us on Friday It will not be applied to Lancashire or Yorkshire. How does he know? The Home Secretary told us:
The cotton industry is not in the faintest danger from these proposals unless it changes its mind and asks to have the proposals extended to it.
The industry as a whole may not change its mind, and yet individual employers or an individual factory or mill may have special reasons for asking for a particular method which may be to the disadvantage of their neighbours and competitors and totally against opinion in that area. I do earnestly ask the Government, is it not possible, while supporting the Clause of my hon. Friend, to put in a proviso that it shall not apply to Lancashire and Yorkshire, to the cotton and allied industries, until not merely an individual asks for it, but the recognised federation of employers and employed agree in asking for it? That does not interfere with the experiment being tried in industries of a different character or prevent it being tried in industries less highly organised and less clearly and completely federated. The Home Secretary and the Government ask for the Second Reading of this Clause without the slightest suggestion of any such limitation, as has been requested unanimously practically for the cotton and allied industries. It is not really helping towards a solution of this problem to vote against this Clause on Second Reading, or to vote for it to get Lancashire and Yorkshire left out. In neither case is the Government getting the amount of support from the House and of general acquiescence which I venture to think they could get if they said that they would not extend it to individual applications, but would be guided by the general opinion of the great Indus-
tries. In the cotton trade employers and employed alike are not only organised in particular places, but are federated throughout the whole industry, and there is no industry in the country which can speak with clearer or more weighty or more general views on a matter which affects the industries. That being so, what is the danger or harm in saying that this is not to extend to the cotton industry unless asked for by the Federation of Cotton Employers and Cotton Operatives? My right hon. Friend knows quite well that it constantly happens that what may be called general opinion is allowed to override the opinion of particular persons. The other day, for instance, we were discussing how individuals who sold chocolate after 8 o'clock at night should be overriden in the interest of a particular group of employers or tradesmen who said, It is against our interests. Not a week passes but we have the doctrine of the general desire of a trade to override individual wishes expressed in this House and embodied in Acts of Parliament. Here we are to have the exact opposite, and an individual or a single mill is to have a system applied which is not applied to the whole trade, when it may be against the general opinion of the persons engaged in the industry. I ask the right hon. Gentleman to make clear that this is not to apply to Lancashire and Yorkshire, to the cotton trade and allied industries. He could do it by putting in a limiting sub-Clause, and still have the opportunity of allowing the experiment to be made in many cases.

Lieut.-Colonel ALLEN: I have rarely listened in this House to a Debate of greater interest. I believe that there is a sincere desire on the part of everyone to come to some arrangement that will be satisfactory all round. If I had been asked on Friday morning, Are you prepared to vote for this Clause? I certainly would have said No, because of my own experience. The cotton industry has been often mentioned. I am largely interested in another textile industry, namely, the linen industry in the North of Ireland. As to the speech we have just heard, you cannot take one industry and put it into the Bill and say, This provision shall not apply to it. I do not think you could legislate in that way. I should like the right hon. Gentleman to
take into consideration the report of the Committee in so far as it relates to special industries, and, if possible, include those special industries which are at present being worked by the two-shift system, and to which it seems to me to be absolutely necessary that that system should be applied. The Committee in their Report say:
We are therefore of the opinion that a ease has been made out for allowing, under conditions, the adoption of the shift system in (1) continuous industry; (2) seasonal trades; and (3) in factories in which the plant and premises are temporarily insufficient.
That is the conclusion, I take it, of this Committee. Then I would like to ask, why was not that conclusion embodied in their recommendations? If that had been done, and then embodied in the Clause, we should have saved a great deal of trouble and of time.

Mr. SHORTT: That would include cotton, because there are already some orders made in the cotton trade.

Mr. BARTLEY DENNISS: The Departmental Committee ignored the cotton industry.

Lieut. Colonel ALLEN: Personally, I have not the slightest objection if it is necessary under the conditions that are referred to in that conclusion. If the machinery is temporarily insufficient, I think it is quite reasonable and arguable that it should apply; if the trades are seasonal, such as the jam trade, it is only reasonable that it should apply; and if it is absolutely necessary in continuous industries, I see no reason why it should not apply, but I say that that ought to have been embodied in the recommendations of the Committee. The words of the Report are these:
These Orders should, we think, be granted for individual factories, or for a class or group of factories, subject to such conditions as the Secretary of State may consider necessary.
The group of factories should, I think, be more particularised, as they are in the findings of the Committee, and if the right hon. Gentleman would consider it from that standpoint, I think he would satisfy certainly myself and, I believe, a large number of those who have spoken in connection with this matter. There is another point to which I would like to refer, which was also mentioned in
the Debate on Friday. One hon. Member said: If I thought this proposal was going to be permanent, I should vote against it, and another said, when speaking in its favour, that it was only a temporary measure, but the arguments that are being used to-day to continue that system will be used five years' hence. That is unquestionable. One of the principal arguments to-day is that it would cause a great deal of unemployment. The Home Secretary stated in his speech on Friday that there are 191 Orders already. In five years' time it is quite possible to conceive that this number will have been doubled, with the result that there might be, instead of 15,000 persons employed, as there are to-day, under the two-shift system, 30,000 or 40,000, and, as the Committee say, at the end of that period Parliament would be free to review the whole question and decide whether the system should be continued for a further period or abandoned. I can conceive of Parliament coming together and debating that question in four or five years' time, and saying, We allowed this system to go on four years ago, when there were only 15,000 who might have been put out of employment, but to-day you have a greater argument why it should be continued, in that there are 40,000 people who would be put out of employment. Therefore, I think the argument that this is only a temporary matter is one which cannot be sustained.
As far as I myself am concerned, I have had a good deal of experience of seeing workers turn out at 6 o'clock in the morning, and I never want to see it again. We have gone away from those times, I hope. I have got the greatest sympathy with the speeches that have fallen from hon. Members opposite. It is true that the shorter hours are certainly some compensation for rising at that hour, but I do not think sufficient has been made of the interference with social life, with mental development, with education, with everything, in fact, that in addition to the physical welfare of the people makes for their intellectual benefit. In my opinion, the education of these women and children is indissolubly connected with their employment. I do not know how far it may interfere with the new Act that has been mentioned in the Debate with regard to continuation classes, but I do know this, that in our country, where we have not got the great advantages of
education that you have here, we have our technical schools, and the system that obtains there at present is that they are almost entirely evening classes. Suppose this two-shift system goes on to any of those industries over there, it is only natural to suppose that the technical schools and others will put up a big fight against the possibility of those who attend those schools being prevented attending, because of the two-shift system. We must take this into consideration and think of the intellectual benefit of these people as well as their physical benefit. I am quite satisfied that the early morning start cannot be beneficial to the health of these people, I am quite satisfied that late hours cannot be beneficial, and I am quite satisfied that continuous work in one factory cannot be beneficial.
So many arguments have been used in that matter that I do not think it necessary to proceed with them, but I do ask the Home Secretary to consider whether he cannot possibly do away with that part of the Clause which mentions the duration of the hours from 6 a.m. to 10 p.m. Surely some arrangement can be made whereby we might all agree that the hours can be shortened, and instead of 6 o'clock put 7 o'clock, and instead of 10 o'clock in the evening put 9 o'clock. It would go a long way to meet the difficulties which some of us have, and I can assure the House that these are general feelings on the part of those who have seen this 6 o'clock early rising. It is too awful to contemplate going back to those days. I have been told that one witness, a factory inspector, gave the evidence that he knew of an instance where the employer allowed the people to come in at 8 o'clock, and the employés with one accord appealed to the employer to allow them to revert to the old hour of 6 o'clock in the morning. Well, I have known that myself, but it is a long time ago. In those days, when they shortened the hours the workers were not able to earn enough money in those hours because of the wages they received. I am speaking of the industry I know, and the workers asked to go back to the 6 o'clock hour because they could not earn sufficient wages in the shorter time, but I am thankful to say that that time has passed away, and that the increase of wages that the workers have now received in that industry enables them to earn
Sufficient in the shorter hours, and that, I think, is as it ought to be. There is no one in that industry, I can assure the right hon. Gentleman, whether employé or employer, who is prepared to go back to the 6 o'clock start, even on a two-shift system.
The medical evidence in connection with the Committee has not been unfavourable nor has it been favourable, but surely two years' examination of such a question is not sufficient for a medical man to say whether the result of a two-shift system would not tend to the deterioration of the race. We want to wait a quarter of a century before a medical man could give advice on that, and therefore I take very little cognisance of the medical evidence given to the Committee. The women themselves are not wholly satisfied, and I see the Committee had the greatest difficulty in coming to a conclusion on the subject at all, but they evidently thought that this is a matter for the displacement of a great many women who are in employment now, and this is the result of their deliberations. I would therefore appeal to the right hon. Gentleman to consider the possibility of shortening the hours that are mentioned in the Clause as drafted, and also the possibility of indicating more particularly the industries in which the two-shift system may obtain.

Mr. ROBINSON GRAHAM: I am entirely opposed to this Clause, and I regard the evidence which has been submitted to the Departmental Committee as poor evidence. If one turns to Paragraph 11 of the Report, one will observe that the best medical evidence which the Committee has been able to obtain is the evidence of Dr. Legge, who says that
the Health of Munition Workers Committee, in the course of their investigation, obtained no direct evidence that digestive disturbance was caused by the change of habit involved in working on alternating shifts. He was not prepared to recommend the prohibition of the system.
I regard that opinion, not as one of definite and satisfactory approval, but as one of cautious consent, and if that is the best medical opinion upon the health of the workers who are engaged in the two-shift system, then I suggest that it is a very small opinion upon which to base so wide a proposal as that contained in this Bill. With regard to education, in the various discussions on this Bill, the consideration of this subject was principally
directed to whether it would have any effect upon the education of children who are subject to the application of the new Education Act. I would rather consider the application of this system in another way. In the constituencies which we all represent there are at the present time classes for the teaching of natural science, technical subjects, Art, literature and music. There are in every constituency public meetings of special interest, musical evenings and gatherings of pleasure. These are all means of adult education, and I wish to impress upon this House the importance of recognising the fact that if this Bill is passed, it will apply not merely to women and young persons who are engaged in certain industries, but it will apply also to the men who are engaged in those industries whose work is inter-independent upon them. Men, women and adolescents, therefore, will all be deprived of these valuable opportunities of adult education, which are even now far too inadequate.
One word about the effect of this Bill. I quote no extreme instance when I refer to the fact of there being in the same household two workers who are engaged the same day on different shifts. When that happens, the housewife will be engaged upon her work from five o'clock in the morning until almost twelve o'clock at night. One of the aims of those who have been particularly concerned in the designing of modern houses has been to provide a house which would reduce the work of the housewife. I ask the House to accept my conclusion, that whatever is likely to be set up in contrivances of domestic and hygienic science for the housewives of today will be more than counter-balanced by the extra work that is imposed upon housewives who become subject indirectly to the application of this Bill. I suggest that the social life of the people in the districts in which are the industries to which this Bill will apply will be disorganised. Relatives will be engaged on different shifts; opportunities for social relationship will be considerably reduced, and opportunities for education, for the benefit of home life, and for social life, meagre as they are to-day, will be exactly halved by the application of this Bill. It has been implied in speeches which have been delivered from both sides of this House that the universal application of this Bill is a possibility. I do not
propose to argue the subject from such a proposition. I regard the universal application of this Bill as a physical impossibility. I do urge that we should consider what is the aim of the Department as definitely expressed by the Minister in charge of the Bill, and what appears to have been the purpose of this Special Committee. Their aim has been either to conduct or to continue an experiment in order that in certain trades there may be certain advantages, which are considered to be essentially desirable. I suggest that most of the Members of this House could agree to the application of such a principle where there was proved to be commercial necessity, and where the operatives and the employers in any particular industry had indicated their consent for its application to that industry.
The authorities that support the Government proposal were mentioned on Friday by an hon. and gallant Member opposite. I think he stated that those authorities were the National Union for Equal Citizenship, the Women's Political and Industrial League, the London Society of Women's Service, and some committee of Reconstruction, whose name I did not completely hear, and he suggested that those authorities were equal to the authorities quoted on the other side. I am quite confident that they are not, but the hon. Member and I need not differ regarding our opinion concerning the value of the authorities. What we have to pay regard to is whether the organised workers in this Coventry regard the societies which are opposed to this measure as being societies which represent organised workers' opinion, or whether they regard the societies quoted by the hon. and gallant Member as being such societies.

Captain BOWYER: I also pointed out in my speech, to which the hon. Member is referring, that the main body in favour of the Clause was the Departmental Committee over which my hon. and learned Friend presided. I further pointed out that three of the bodies to which the hon. Member has referred as supporting him, and which are named on the outside of the Labour party's Manifesto, actually gave evidence before the Committee, and the two Members of the Labour party who were on the Departmental Committee must have heard that evidence, and they
signed the Report in favour of my proposal.

Mr. GRAHAM: My question is, Who supports the Bill? These societies do not support the Bill. I say, therefore, that the evidence with regard to the effect of this Bill upon the health and education of the workers, upon the health of the housewives, and upon the conditions of home life and social life, 'is such that the application of this Bill cannot reasonably be urged. One word with regard to the statement in paragraph 15 on the subject of the commencement of work at six o'clock in the morning. It says:
Where, on the other hand, the worker lives close to her work, few felt any strong objection to the six o'clock start.
I submit that that is an irrefutable instance of the unreliability of the evidence which has been submitted to the Departmental Committee. The opinion there expressed with regard to the workers of this country on the subject of the six o'clock start is a false one. May I observe that the attitude adopted by the Minister in charge of this Bill towards what he regards as an experiment is a quite different attitude from that adopted by the Minister of Health as to what he regards as an experiment? The Minister of Health has recently prohibited guilds from accepting more than a certain number of contracts because he regards it as an experiment. You regard this as an experiment, and yet you leave it open to be adopted by any firm in any industry if only the consent of the workers in the industry can be obtained. I submit the evidence does not justify the claim for wide application. I am not opposed to new methods of production, but I do urge that they should be good new methods. I am convinced that the majority of the Members of this House who have closely considered this Debate are of opinion that this Bill should not have this wide application, and I am also of opinion that the people of this country are not favourable to the application of the Bill.

Mr. LYLE: I desire to address a very few words to this House from the standpoint, I wish to make perfectly clear, of an employer of labour who has studied this question somewhat thoroughly. The Debate, as has been said by the hon. and gallant Member opposite, has reached a
very high level in many cases, but, on reading the various speeches which were made last Friday very carefully, and listening to a great many of them to-day, I cannot help feeling that a great many of the criticisms which have been urged against this Bill have been exceedingly ill-digested, ill-considered and ill-thought out. There is one remark to which I should like to take exception right off, and that is the remark which was made by my hon. Friend the Member for Royton (Mr. Sugden), that the employers as a whole were entirely against this proposal. I entirely deny that assertion, and I do not think it can be borne out by the evidence. As regards the opposition of the Labour party, at least the Labour party leaders are consistent, and then consistency lies in the fact that they consistently take a wrong view, if I may say so, of almost all the big questions of the day. On this particular point they take, I think, an entirely wrong view in their statement that they represent the workers on this subject.
6.0 P.M.
There have been certain suggestions made from other hon. Members that a compromise should be made in this matter, and that certain alterations should be made in the suggested hours of starting and stopping. I would urge the Government to stand firm on this question, and to keep to the original hours that are laid down in the new Clause, because I feel it would be far better to drop the Clause altogether than to make any alteration in the hours. After all, what is the suggestion? The suggestion is that there should be an experimental period during which this Clause and this Bill are to act. The idea is that manufacturers, workers, and the Government themselves should be able to see, after a course of time, how this system has worked, whether it has had the evil effect which has been suggested, and, in short, get a fair trial. In my opinion, and speaking as an employer of labour, I do not think that if the hours were reduced you would get a fair experiment at all, because I do not believe it would pay manufacturers to introduce the two-shift system with the hours reduced, as has been suggested in certain quarters. Therefore I feel that the very object for which we are out, that is to get this experiment and to see how the thing works, we would
not get. I am speaking as an employer who favours this scheme. Nothing would have induced me to back this scheme if I had known from experience, or from the evidence placed before the Committee, that by so doing we should be taking action which would be detrimental to the health of the workers or to the vast majority of people of this country. I have been studying the Report—and, after all, the Report is what we have principally to go by—it is all very well for hon. Members on the Benches above the Gangway to say that the Report of this particular Committee has been pre judiced, and that prejudiced evidence was given—

Mr. SHORT: Other parts of the House thought so, too.

Mr. LYLE: Oh, yes, I am not referring particularly to the hon. Member's benches. But it is useless for them to say that this evidence is valueless, for it is that which neutral people have to go on. That evidence, so far as I can see, has never gone in the direction of showing that this early starting of work and late finish will be detrimental to the health interests of the workers. Far from it; for what we propose here in effect would be a reduction of hours of labour, from roughly 48 hours to 41¼. That is by this suggested two-shift system. Hon. Members have got up in the House and talked about the terrible effect on a married woman going out at six o'clock in the morning, and inquired, What was she to do with her precious bundle?—Where would she deposit it? And so on. But that argument is one against the employment of married women at all. It does not apply particularly to this case. The married woman who has to deposit her child somewhere will be away six hours less than before, because the effect of this Clause is a reduction of hours. Therefore, she is away from her offspring actually for half a dozen hours less. Another point from the evidence before the Committee, so far as I have read it, is that all women's organisations in general, and particularly those of married women, are entirely in favour of this suggested Clause. It has been stated on more than one occasion by those who have given evidence that they would see more of their children if this was carried. As a matter of fact, I think the proportion of married women in most works is very,
very small. I have in my hand at the present moment letters from three women's organisations who I do not think have been mentioned before in this House. One is from the London Society of Women's Service. It is dated 29th November, and is written to an hon Member of this House. It says:
I am writing to you with reference to the Women, Young Persons and Children (Employment) Bill, the further discussion of which, I see, is to be taken this afternoon, to beg you, if you can, to secure that the Bill is passed in the form which makes as little difference as possible between the Regulations for adult women workers and the Regulations for the adult men workers. Both the National Union of Societies for Equal Citizenship, and this Society, welcomed the Report of the Home Office Committee on this subject, and trust that its recommendations will be carried out by Parliament. We feel that protective legislation, however excellent its intention, if it is applied to adult women and not to adult men, simply means putting another handicap on women in industry. We, therefore, greatly hope this Bill will pass to-day.
That is one letter. Whether it appeals to hon. Members above the Gangway or not I do not know. I do not suppose it will. One could not expect them to agree with anything except what they think good. In my opinion they do not represent the working classes of this country, and I hope to show that very clearly in a few moments. The Women's Engineering Society also writes—no doubt hon. Members of the Labour party do not like to hear anything that does not suit them. However, they have got to hear this! This, again, is a letter written to an hon. Gentleman opposite. It reads:
I understand that you are in charge of the Women, Young Persons and Children (Employment) Bill with regard to the suitability of the two-shift system for women. Should women not be allowed to work on the two-shift system, it will mean a serious handicap to them in their struggle for a livelihood. Women are asking to be permitted to enter all branches of industry and any legislation which discriminates between the conditions of employment of men and women will seriously handicap women in their fight for freedom.
I am not going to read to the end, because there is nothing particular in the rest of the letter. But I also have a letter written the same day by the Women's Industrial League. It is to this effect:
I understand that the Debate will be continued to-day on the Women, Young Persons and Children (Employment) Bill. Therefore, on behalf of the Women's Political and
Industrial League, I enclose a copy of a resolution unanimously passed by the Council of the League at the last meeting, held on 18th October, 1920. The resolution is as follows:
'That this Council is strongly in favour of the retention of Clause (2) in the Women, Young Persons and Children (Employment) Bill.'
Those are the three letters which show that there are, at any rate, certain women's organisations besides of which we have heard which are entirely in favour of the retention of this Clause. An hon. Gentleman who was speaking on Friday made a great point of what he considered was the fact that young girls would be out after 10 o'clock at night, and would be going home at that time on the 2 p.m. to 10 p.m. shift. He said that it was entirely wrong that any girl should be out after 10 o'clock. I take it, if he is consistent, that when the Labour party comes into power he will induce them to introduce a Bill which will make it the law of the land that every young girl is to be inside the house at 10 o'clock at night. That will be reasonable, and a corollary to what it is proposed we should do. A young girl must not come out of a factory or go home where there are these shifts, and where there are plenty of men going home at the same time, and the streets are crowded and no chance at all of being interfered with! They will have to bring in an enactment on the same lines as here suggested preventing young girls going to the cinema.
The Labour party opposes this Clause, and one of the reasons they have given for criticising the Report of the Departmental Committee was they thought the Departmental Committee had not given sufficient attention to the evidence of the trade unionists, and that the Committee went too much in the direction of defending the Government. It was also suggested that perhaps individuals were not good representatives to give evidence. One hon. Member suggested, speaking from his own experience, that an employé gave certain evidence to him in his capacity of a trade union official, and different evidence to his employer; and that argument was advanced to suggest that the employé was frightened of his employer. All I can say as to that is that these employé s came up voluntarily and gave their evidence before the Com-
mittee, and is it not as much open to me to suggest that they are just as much frightened of the tyranny of the trade unions as they are frightened of their employers? If it is going to be suggested that there is any fear going, certainly my experience of any employés I have ever dealt with is that they never feared my firm. So far as I know they do not fear their employers at all. There were any number of individual employés who came up and gave evidence. All these points were put to them about the early start and the late finish, and they practically by a great majority preferred it, saying that they got a larger number of hours by starting in the afternoon every other week from 2 till 10. On alternative weeks they had the morning off, and that gave them more time for shopping and pleasure in view of the shorter hours and better conditions.

Mr. MYERS: By whom were they invited?

Mr. LYLE: They were in many cases invited by the Committee to give evidence, but I am not discussing that particular point. But what happened at one of our particular works may interest the House. We took a ballot of our employés. We asked them for their opinion on this particular question. We felt in one particular industry in which we are interested that it would be a great advantage to the workers, and a great advantage to the country and to the output and everything else, if we could get quicker results by this system. We wanted to hear the opinion of our workers, and I think it will be agreed by anyone who looks upon the matter in an impartial light that the steps we took were very fair steps. We issued a ballot paper. We did not say, Sign this here and now and hand it in. We said to our employés, Take this home, think about it, and consult your father and mother, or the rest of the family, say how it would affect your home life, consult your trade union officials if you like, and in a couple of days put a cross against your belief in the matter. We put on the ballot paper:
The directors have for some time bee considering the possibility of working the department in which you are employed for two shifts instead of one. Under the two-shift scheme you would work one week from 6 a.m. till 2 p.m., with half an hour for breakfast, being a total of 45 hours per
week. The next week, work would be from 2 till 10 on all days, with half a hour for tea, except Saturday, which would be a day off on this shift, being a total of 37½ hours. This gives an average week of 41¼ hours. Before considering the matter further, the directors would like to know whether you are in favour of this scheme, and they ask you to record your feelings on this ballot paper, which you should hand to your foreman at dinner-time to-morrow.
We placed what we believed the disadvantages and advantages of the two-shift system.

Mr. M'GUFFIN: What is the industry concerned in that particular case?

Mr. LYLE: It was tin-making, which, for some reason or another, has almost entirely women and young persons employed.

Mr. MILLS: What interval did you say they had in the eight hours?

Mr. LYLE: A half an hour's interval, from six till two, and also from two till 10, which makes a working week alternatively of 37½ hours and 45 hours, or an average of 41¼. We stated the advantages and the disadvantages of the early and late start on the ballot paper, and we sent the ballot paper out, and asked them to vote upon it. Those who know us well enough know that there would never be any pressure on the workpeople. The result was an eight to one majority in favour of this two-shift system. I merely mention that to the House because really so much rubbish has keen talked about this being injurious to the workers. One hon. Member went so far as to look upon this proposal as if it were something employers wanted to do in order to go back to some prehistoric age. We have been told how some people fought against raising the age limit of the workers in factories, and this Clause has been treated as if it were a reactionary thing. I suggest that what is being asked for under this Clause is not something that will give the workers longer hours and worse conditions, but quite the contrary, for it will give a shorter day and more time off, and the workers will have more time to enjoy themselves. I think this scheme ought to be looked upon fairly and squarely, and without prejudice.

Mr. FORREST: I desire to move, as an Amendment to the proposed new Clause now under consideration, another new Clause which stands in my name on the Paper in the following terms:
The Secretary of State shall have power at any time and from time to time by Order to exempt from the operation of the Act for such period as he shall think fit any industry or branch of any industry upon being satisfied that such industry is prejudiced by the competition of any country which is not subject to equally restrictive legislation.
I think the words of my proposal would meet many of the objections raised to the Clause we are now discussing. I am only concerned with the glass industry, and I should be quite prepared to accept any Amendment excluding textile industries. It has been admitted that certain industries of necessity must be carried on continuously, and that obviously means a shift system of some kind. The glass industry has been recognised as being entitled to exceptions in all pre-War legislation. In 1895, when the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Paisley (Mr. Asquith) was Home Secretary, he specifically stated that the glass industry had made out so strong a case that they would be exempt from the legislation which he was proposing at that time. What we are now considering is admittedly experimental legislation, and neither advocates nor opponents can, with any conviction, say that their point of view is the right one. On humanitarian grounds, I take it we are all in favour of shorter hours, against starting work too early and against a late leaving off of work.
We have not only to consider our own country, but we have, to consider the conditions prevailing in other countries as well. In the past we have had unfair and sweating competition to compete with from other countries, and I am afraid we have to recognise that the chances are we shall have that state of things over again to some extent in the future. In the glass industry the pre-War imports amounted to £3,000,000 per annum. In practically the 14 months in 1919–20 the imports in this industry amounted to £10,500,000. Even at a largely increased value, that is a very alarming figure. The glass industry was very badly hit in pre-War times, and it was almost wiped out of existence. During the War endeavours have been made to bring back to this country that trade which foreign competitors had, and it is our duty to help and protect menaced industries under the operation of this Act.

Mr. CLYNES: We have had an extremely useful Debate, ranging over about 2½ hours this afternoon, and I would like to begin by correcting the impression which seems to have been formed that the opposition to the Clause emerges only from the Labour Benches. Not a single hon. Member in the Debate has supported this Clause in the terms in which it appears on the Paper. Therefore it is not merely Labour or trade union opposition. One hon. Member succeeded, if in nothing else, in importing into the Debate the first little splash of class colour of what he termed the trade union tyranny, and this comes mostly from those who have not followed the various speeches which have been made on the Clause now before the House.

Mr. FORREST: May I ask if the right hon. Gentleman is Seconding my Amendment?

Mr. SPEAKER: This Clause has not yet reached the stage at which an Amendment may be moved. When the Clause has been read a Second time, that will be the occasion on which to move any Amendment.

Mr. CLYNES: Something can be said for the object aimed at by the hon. Member opposite (Mr. Forrest). We would all like to make the fullest possible use of the machinery, the plant, and the general apparatus used in industry with a view to increasing output, and making the best contribution we can to the industrial prosperity of the country, but I think we are inclined to express an honest difference of opinion in regard to the best way to attain that end. The Clause before us has a very big human aspect of the industrial question. Even those who are incensed against trade unions will, I think, agree that it is highly undesirable to make women and young persons, boys and girls, get up at 5 o'clock in the morning and turn out to work. I doubt whether there is a single hon. Member of this House who is prepared to say that it is in itself a desirable or even a necessary thing to make boys and girls and women work as late as 10 o'clock at night, probably getting to their homes about 11 o'clock. That is the question before us, and on the balance I suggest that the weight of evidence is against the object of this Clause. There is a very great difference of opinion be-
tween certain representatives who claim to speak for the employers interested in this Clause, and, so far as I can see, there is not a single industrial organisation made up of the persons who will be affected by legislation such as this which is in favour of this Clause.

Mr. SEDDON: The glass workers of St. Helens overwhelmingly support this Clause as it stands. I have the authority of the president of the glass workers' organisation, who was their official delegate, and who was here on Friday in this House, in making that statement.

Mr. CLYNES: Of course, I accept that testimony, which I hear for the first time, but I thought what the glass workers desired was to have their case met, not in the terms of this Clause, but in a very different way.

Mr. SEDDON: They accepted this Clause.

Mr. CLYNES: Speaking of trades and industries in general, and this Clause covers any industry, trade, factory or workshop, I say that, taking the workers collectively, the balance of evidence clearly proves that industrial organisations generally are opposed to the Clause which is now before the House. I know there are organisations actively interested in the political and social aspects of this question who have given their blessing, not so much to this Clause, but to the general objects of the Bill without the Clause.

Mr. LYLE: What do the workers themselves think of it?

Mr. CLYNES: I do not accept the instance which the hon. Member has given as expressing the opinion of industries in general. The hon. Member and his fellow employers arranged a ballot, and asked for replies to certain questions put to them, arranged by, himself arid his fellow employers, but that is not the right way to get a real test of the opinion of the workers.

Mr. LYLE: Can the right hon. Gentleman find fault in any way with the terms which I read out, and does he not realise that the workers themselves gave evidence before the Committee in regard to other firms as well.

Mr. CLYNES: I am not finding fault with the terms of the ballot paper, but I am objecting to that particular method being adduced as the real test of what is the opinion of the workers on a matter of this kind. In short, I say that the fairest way is to bring the workers together. I do not mind employers bringing the workers together to explain matters, and it is a very useful step to bring them collectively together and tell them what is meant, but you cannot judge this question by some statement on the ballot paper, because you will only understand one side of the case, and there are many other sides which could not be stated on a ballot paper, which obviously is drawn up to secure a certain result. I suggest, then, to the Home Secretary that the balance of opinion by far is against acceptance of this Clause, and I ask his attention to the fact that only one Member during the whole course of this Debate has written to support the Clause in the terms in which it stands on the Paper. I hope before we come to a vote on the Clause we shall have from the right hon. Gentleman some opinion on the appeals which have been addressed to him from more than one quarter as to varying the words of the Clause. He has been asked to agree to working hours, not as between 6 a.m. and 10 p.m., but from 7 a.m. to 9 p.m. That would be a very substantial modification, but I do not think it would at all—or entirely—remove the objections which many of us entertain to the substance of this Clause in principle. I want to address one or two remarks to the House on that point.
I strongly object to legislation of this kind. I do not think it is a good thing for the trades and industries of the country to repose in the Home Office, or a section of it, power, on application, to vary or extend the working hours in different trades and occupations. If such power has to be given I would not regard the Home Office as the best Department of State for the purpose. We have now a Ministry of Labour. I dare say the Home Secretary would approve of his task being made somewhat lighter. It is heavy enough, and he has no personal interest in retaining duties of this kind in his particular Department. If we are to have a Ministry permanently established and gathering by its daily activities all the knowledge obtainable with regard to industrial conditions, a Ministry daily in
touch with the personnel of employers and of trade union representatives, and still more in touch with the industries and trade interests of the country, than the Home Office can be, why is it that the Ministry of Labour is not to exercise these powers? On the general merits of the case, I think we are devising a wrong way to deal with whatever may be the demands under this head. If there be a real demand from certain industries—the glass, the chemical or the tinplate—let those trades formulate it and let it be shown that there is some measure of agreement among employers and employed for establishing the two-shift system, and let us have a Bill in due form and proper legislation in statutory terms rather than hand over the task to a State. Department. It seems to me that a State Department might at some time vary the hours of labour and establish the two-shift system in any workshop or factory in any one industry or one town, and indeed in any one single establishment or part of an establishment. Talking of piecemeal legislation, that is piecemeal chopped into still smaller pieces, and I am surprised that so far as to-day's Debate has gone, the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary has given no indication of what the attitude of the Government is or what is his own view on the substance of this Clause.

Mr. SHORTT: I spoke on Friday.

Mr. CLYNES: I am aware of that, but my point is that new aspects of the casa have been presented during the two and a half hours' Debate we have had this afternoon, and appeals have come from very representative quarters in this House to the right hon. Gentleman to say something on the question of contracting the hours and making them from 7 a.m. to 9 p.m. instead of 6 a.m. till 10 p.m. We all know that 6 a.m. means 5 o'clock for the worker. I am loth to give my own personal experience, but I offer it for what it is worth. For many years I had to rise at 4.30 a.m. in order to walk a distance of three miles to a cotton factory, so as to be there not later than half-past five. A 6 o'clock start really means that the workman must be at the factory long before the actual time, for there is a lot of preparatory work to be done before the actual machinery start can be made. It may be that employers in these days are having a somewhat different experience
from my own thirty odd years ago. The only point I want to put to the House as arising out of this experience is that the workers more and more must in the nature of things, because of housing conditions, rise earlier and travel further in order to get to their day's employment, so that when we are thinking of children having to start work at 6 a.m. we must think of these boys and girls and women rising at 5 o'clock, or even perhaps before, because of the long distance they have to travel. I suggest seriously to the House that this is placing in the hands of a Department of the State a power which, if it is to be exercised at all, should be expressed and used in statutory terms, and that the House itself should accept the responsibility for it and not hand it over to a State Department. If we are to experiment in legislation of this character the experiment should in the first instance be limited expressly to the seasonal trades and those which are termed continuous occupation. Something may be said for proceeding on these lines.
I gather that in reply to that argument the Home Secretary says this would not become compulsory, that it does not apply to all trades and occupations, and that probably the great textile trade of Lancashire would be left outside the operation if a Clause of this kind is carried. The answer to that argument is that it is compulsory, because as soon as a demand is made to make it compulsory and as soon as power is given in response to that demand, it will depend on the degree to which the demand may arise whether the Home Office may be able to resist it or not. Although we are faced with a very considerable prospect of great industrial embarrassment and difficulty in respect of wages, work, and prices, I submit there should be a governing principle in this matter which should guide us in all respects, and that principle is, that in regard to the conditions for women and young persons we should legislate upon lines which will really meet the age and the sex needs of women and young persons. I put it to the House, it is not fair even in the interests of trade, or even because of the demands of business or industry to do this thing, and I go further and say it is not up to the moral standard we ought to adopt in regard to the position of women, boys and girls that they should be made to get up at
five in the morning or be away from home as late as eleven at night when they are engaged on a task which should commence later or terminate very much earlier. My last objection to this Clause is that it would not be fair to many of the best employers in particular trades that might be affected. The position of the best employer is that he will go very little ahead of the other employers, and would rather follow them He might not be disposed to resort to the advantages of such a Clause as this whereas the worst employer might do so and thereby compel him.

Mr. SHORTT: I believe I shall be able to meet that particular point. When an Order is made for one factory or one mill to adopt the two-shift system it is suggested it might force others to apply for a similar Order, but I think I shall be able to meet that when we come to the Amendments.

Mr. CLYNES: I welcome that intimation. It rather takes the point from what I was going to say to the House. I hope I am anticipating in the right direction when I say the right hon. Gentleman ought to give us reassurances that the authority and power of his Department will not be used in a direction virtually favouring the less humane type of employer and placing the more humane type at a disadvantage. I think the right hon. Gentleman will have to go very far indeed in his reassurances if he is to take away the substance of the objections to the Clause which have been revealed during this Debate. I draw-attention to the fact that the Clause in the terms as it stands is likely to do incalculable harm. It has been so far resisted by every speaker who has troubled the House. It is also resisted, commonly speaking, by the whole body of organised workers who have any right whatever to speak for their members and who have expressed their opinions on the matter.

Mr. G. ROBERTS: Having listened to all the Debate on Friday and to most of it to-day, I confess I find myself in a little doubt as to what is the proper thing to do under the circumstances. Undoubtedly that is the virtue of being able to listen dispassionately to both sides of a case. I have now come to the conclusion that unless my right hon. Friend is prepared to accept Amendments to this Clause I shall have no alternative
but to vote against it. Everybody agrees that it would be desirable to get rid of the employment at night of women and young persons, and even of their employment in the early hours of the morning. Some, of us go so far as to grasp at the ideal that women and young persons shall be excluded from industry altogether. That is not a practicable question. Nevertheless I think we should view with great apprehension anything calculated to extend the possibilities of young persons and women being employed in the very early hours of the morning or late at night, and certainly we have to admit that there is some possibility in this Clause of that being the result. These continuous shifts must undoubtedly have a prejudicial effect upon health. Nevertheless, while aiming at ideals, we have to recognise that we live in a world of actuality. The International Labour Organisation of the League of Nations—a body designed, I believe, to elevate the general labour conditions of the world and to make it possible for industry throughout the world to be humanised—recognised that there were certain industries that would have to be exempted from their proposals. It is very easy, when the industry in which one is specifically interested is exempted, to take a broad view of the question, but there is no industry in which I am particularly concerned.
On Friday I was much impressed by the statement of my hon. and learned Friend (Mr. Inskip) who presided over the Committee which inquired into this matter; and, when a woman of such a splendid record in the labour world as Miss Julia Varley has attached her signature to it, I am bound to confess that there must be a great deal more in the proposal than presented itself to me at first. If we clear our minds of cant, we must see that behind a good deal of the demand for restrictions on women's labour is the desire to exclude them from industry, by making their conditions of employment so onerous as to become uneconomic. I conclude that my friend Miss Julia Varley has perceived that there was something of this character in the agitation that she had to meet. I do not want to go so far as that, although I must confess that, in the days when I was acting as a trade union official, I was a party to devising conditions which would render it almost impossible for
employment to be given to women in the industry in which I was then engaged. That was our set policy, but I hope that we are not going to be actuated by such considerations in this House. My real objection to this proposal is that it gives to the Home Secretary, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Miles Platting (Mr. Clynes) has said, a power with which he ought not to be invested, and which, in my opinion, with all respect to him, he and his Department are not really competent to administer. I should like him to give us some indication as to whether he is prepared to accept the first Amendment on the Paper, which is obviously put down on behalf of the Labour party, and which proposes that the application of the principle of the two-shift system shall only take place on the application of the two parties in the industry. I agree with my right hon. Friend the Member for Miles Platting that these labour questions ought to be administered by the Ministry set up to deal with labour matters. I have no longer any connection with the Ministry of Labour, but I do know that, throughout the period during which I have been in this House, we pushed the demand for the establishment of a Ministry of Labour, and we accepted it as part of the condition of entering the Coalition under the present Prime Minister. I take this opportunity of protesting against the slight cast upon a Ministry which we have desired should be established, and whose proper function it is, in my opinion, to deal with all labour legislation and administration.
Here, again, however, I do not want even the Minister of Labour to be invested with such powers as are proposed. While I was at the Ministry of Labour it was my duty, on behalf of the Government, to recommend to private employers, and ultimately to urge upon Government Departments, the application of the scheme of Joint Industrial Councils, which are generally referred to as Whitley Councils. These bodies, in my opinion, are the proper bodies to be invested with the power of making recommendations to the Government as to whether the principle should or should not be applied to a particular industry. They are equally representative of the two parties, and they are in a position to take a broad and comprehensive view of the matter; and I think that, in dealing
with matters of trade and commerce, it is very unwise, to hamper them by Act of Parliament. We see from the inquiries made by the International Labour Organisation that some exceptions have to be made to the principle, and it may well prove, on investigation, that there ought to be farther exceptions. Having regard to the principle underlying this new Clause, I respectfully suggest that it should not be further extended except with the concurrence, after full deliberation, of the two parties in the industry, as represented in the Joint Industrial Councils which the Government have recommended should be set up in connection with all industries. While I do not believe that the Amendment to which I have referred would meet everyone in the House, I believe that it would go a long way towards meeting the objections that some of us entertain, and I would suggest to my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary that he would lose nothing by indicating his willingness to accept it, but would, I am sure, thereby bring the Bill into harmony with the policy of the Government, as previously enunciated by the Ministry of Labour.

Mr. SHORTT: Will my right hon. Friend kindly tell me to which Amendment he is referring?

Mr. ROBERTS: It is the first of the Amendments on the Paper, standing in the name of my hon. Friends the Members for Ormskirk (Mr. Bell), Preston (Mr. Shaw), and Westhoughton (Mr. Tyson Wilson). I do not suggest that the exact wording should be followed, but I desire that these matters should be dealt with by the Joint Industrial Councils, which, I think, may be accepted now as representative in the democratic sense of the various industries of the country.

Mr. SHORTT: Perhaps it would be convenient if I tell the House now what I had proposed to suggest in the discussion upon this first Amendment. I had proposed to suggest that the Amendment should be framed to the effect—I do not insist on the exact words—that the Secretary of State shall not have power to make an Order under this Section in respect of a factory or workshop in any industry, if a joint representatation is made to him by organisations representing the majority of the employers and the workers in the in-
dustry, that Orders under this Section ought not to be made in respect of factories and workshops in that industry: that is to say, that if representations were made by the Joint Industrial Council that in any particular industry the majority of the workers and of the employers did not desire that Orders should be made, they should not be made.

Mr. M'GUFFIN: I should not have thought it necessary to intervene at this moment if I did not feel that this proposal represented a rather retrograde movement with respect to industrial reform. We think that this Clause militates against the success of the Bill. We could not for one moment entertain the idea of asking women and children to rise early in the morning or to work late at night. Whatever it may mean with respect to the male portion of the operatives, we feel that it is most undesirable that it should be applied to women and children. We hear a great deal about the equality of the sexes, and there is a sense in which that is true. They are entitled to claim equality of privilege. But I am not of opinion that women are equal to men in respect of physical power or endurance. Failure to take note of that fact is decidedly retrograde. We have been told that the proposal will not be so applied that it would be a serious hardship to women, but I happen to have had a varied experience as an industrialist, and I remember, when I was only 11 years of age, going out to work at 5.30 in the morning and working until 6 o'clock at night. I made up my mind that, if it were ever in my power to prevent the continuance of this injustice, it would be my duty to do so. I get the opportunity this evening, and I cannot sit silent and see this injustice done to women. Nothing that we have heard in this Debate has convinced me that it will not be physically detrimental to women to rise early in the morning and go away to work, leaving undone many of the duties that must be incumbent upon them in their homes. It will also be equally deleterious to their health for them to work late at night.
We had an assurance on Friday that this would not militate against the educational privileges of women, but how is it possible that the continuation classes which are to be provided should become operative in their case if they are com-
pelled to work at these hours? I am not concerned with regard to the industrial aspect of the question, but as to how it is going to affect women's health. It has been suggested that the Clause will really mean a shortening of the hours, and I am quite prepared to concede that, but I am not prepared to accept the Clause. If we desire to shorten women's hours of employment let us get it done directly by a Bill. I have heard reports from organisations for the defence of women and children with respect to this Bill, and with respect to this Clause, and they are unanimously against the adoption of the Clause. That has been met to some extent by the statement made by the Minister in charge, of the Bill, and I think that it would perhaps meet the case; but if the cotton and woollen industries, say, are to be exempted, I would insist, as representing the linen industry, that that industry should be exempted similarly. We shall strenuously oppose the application of this Clause to the linen trade. Whatever the House may do with regard to the Minister's suggestion, I hope that it will resolutely oppose the adoption of this Clause.

7.0 P.M.

Sir D. MACLEAN: You have permitted, Mr. Speaker, for the convenience of the House, a reference to the Amendment standing in the name of three hon. Members associated with the Labour party, and it drew from my right hon. Friend in charge of the measure a very important statement. May I just ask him, for the purpose of elucidating the point, a question as to the real position as between the Amendment standing on the Paper and the Amendment to the insertion of which he would, as I understand, have no objection? As the Amendment stands on the Paper it only allows the proposal contained in the new Clause to come into operation on the application of the employer and the organisation of the workpeople concerned, which might or might not be the conciliation council popularly known as the Whitley Council. As I understand it, the proposal of my right hon. Friend puts that the other way round, and says that it shall not come into operation where opposed by the employers and the employés' representatives. My right hon. Friend says he is not bound by the words which he suggests. He would be very
willing to reconsider the words if the House came substantially to the conclusion that some such exceptional power of option as this might be inserted. He is not committed to the words that he has indicated. That is the position.

Mr. T. WILSON: The indication that the Government are prepared to accept an Amendment does to some extent re move the cause of our opposition. While we do not like the Clause at all, we recognise that in many of the great industries no application will be made to put it into operation. We also recognise that a case may be made out for a change in some industries. I did not altogether like the suggestion made by the hon. Member who seconded this Clause (Mr. Seddon). He referred to the fact that in the textile industries the trade unions were strong enough to resist any attempt to impose this Clause on that in dustry—

Mr. SEDDON: I beg the hon. Gentle man's pardon. That was a slip, and I tried to put it right. I meant the organisations in the textile industries, which include the employers as well as the workmen.

Mr. WILSON: The suggestion left on our minds was that in industries where the working classes were not strong enough, this Clause would be imposed on the workpeople, willy nilly.

Mr. SEDDON: No.

Mr. WILSON: That was the impression on the minds of many of us who have spent all, our lives in trade-union work. I should like the Home Office to make it quite clear that before any order is made, imposing a double shift in any factory or workshop, the industry as an industry will be consulted. I think the Amendment means that, but I am not quite certain about it. I also hope that the question of reducing the hours, which are now from 6 a.m. to 10 p.m., will be considered when the Clause is in Committee, and that the Government will give serious attention to the necessity of making the starting time in the morning later and the time for finishing work in the evening earlier. There is one doubt in my mind in connection with the Clause which will be removed if it is quite clear that the industry, as an industry, will be consulted. I fear that we shall have in one big industry a factory,
or group of factories, belonging to the same company, which will apply for an order to be made, whereby they can work double shifts in the factories. If that power is left in the Bill we shall have discontent, friction, and industrial trouble.

Sir RYLAND ADKINS: On a point of Order. Would it be possible for the Amendment adumbrated by the Home Secretary, though it is not on the Order Paper at this moment, to be placed on the Paper and discussed in Committee?

Mr. SPEAKER: If the House agrees with this Clause we shall proceed with it almost at once.

Sir R. ADKINS: Supposing the Second Reading is now accepted, and the House proceeds to Committee, will it then be open to the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary to move an Amendment additional to those on the Order Paper?

Mr. SPEAKER: The House will not proceed to Committee. The Amendments will be considered on Report.

Sir R. ADKINS: Including some which might be put down?

Mr. SPEAKER: Yes.

Mr. T. SHAW: This Clause is a retrograde step. There is no guarantee whatever that if it goes to Committee it will be in any way modified, and it is fair to assume that as it goes through the House so it will remain. For all practical purposes, the Clause means that women and young persons in certain industries must rise at five o'clock in the morning. Those of us who have had personal experience of rising at five o'clock to go to work do not desire that women and young children in any trade should have to do that. I do not know why it should have been necessary, after the professions made by various people, even to suggest that women should rise at that untimely hour. Anyhow, here is the suggestion, am because I have a decided objection co women and young persons being brought out at that hour in the morning, I shall vote against the Clause, without even risking its going to Committee with the

Division No. 376.]
AYES.
[7.13 p.m.


Addison, Rt. Hon. Dr. C.
Balfour, George (Hampstead)
Better ton, Henry B.


Agg-Gardner, Sir James Tynte
Banbury, Rt. Hon. Sir Frederick G.
Bigland, Alfred


Atkey, A. R.
Barlow, Sir Montague
Bird, Sir A. (Wolverhampton, West)


Baird, Sir John Lawrence
Barnett, Major R. W
Borwick, Major G. O.


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley
Bellairs. Commander Carlvon W.
Boscawen Rt. Hon. Sir A. Griffith-

Possibility of its amendment there. My objection is quite simple. I am against the whole thing, root and branch. If the proposal had been of a modifying character, one could have understood it. Here it is in its bald nature. It means that they will have to rise at five o'clock in the morning. I do not agree with that, and I shall vote against the Clause.

Dr. MURRAY: One requires to be a medical man to understand that this Clause really represents a retrograde step. What is the use of setting up a Ministry of Health in order, as we have been told, to improve the conditions of the C3 population, if by a side wind we are going in this way to impose a serious check on the improvement of the health of the community? If the permission granted in this Clause is taken advantage of, it is bound to have a retrograde effect on the rising population. If young persons, at the age of adolescence, are turned cut to work at that early hour of the morning, it must affect all their future lives. Personally, I have had to work at all hours of the twenty-four, and I know what a difference it makes if one goes to work without breakfast, instead of leaving home a good while after breakfast. It may be argued that the young persons might go to bed early, but you cannot get boys of sixteen to go to bed at eight o'clock at night in order to rise at five o'clock in the morning. If you deprive them of the necessary amount of rest, apart from the effect on their health of getting up early in the morning, you will be burning the candle at both ends. Thus, you will be giving permission to the Home Office, which some day may be presided over by a man without a soul, to inflict a serious blow on the health of the young generation. Industry was made for man, and not man for industry. We have to consider the health and the welfare of the individual first in all these industrial problems. From that point of view I feel sure I am right in voting against this Clause, in any shape or form.

Question put, That the Clause be read a Second time.

The House divided: Ayes, 148; Notes, 66.

Bowyer, Captain G. E. W.
Hohler, Gerald Fltzroy
Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)


Bramsdon, Sir Thomas
Hood, Joseph
Norris, Colonel Sir Henry G.


Brassey, Major H. L. C.
Hope, James F. (Sheffield, Central)
Norton-Griffiths, Lieut.-Col. Sir John


Bridgeman, William Clive
Hope, Lt.-Col. Sir J. A. (Midlothian)
Pearce, Sir William


Bull, Rt. Hon. Sir William James
Hopkins, John W. W.
Perkins, Walter Frank


Burn, Col. C. R. (Devon, Torquay)
Home, Sir R. S. (Glasgow, Hillhead)
Perring, William George


Butcher, Sir John George
Hume-Williams, Sir W. Ellis
Pollock, Sir Ernest M.


Campion, Lieut.-Colonel W. R.
Hunter, General Sir A. (Lancaster)
Pratt, John William


Carew, Charles Robert S.
Inskip, Thomas Walker H.
Prescott, Major W. H.


Carr, W. Theodore
Jackson, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. F. S.
Pulley, Charles Thornton


Casey, T. W.
James, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. Cuthbert
Purchase, H. G.


Cecil, Rt. Hon. Evelyn (Birm., Aston)
Jodrell, Neville Paul
Raeburn, Sir William H.


Churchman, Sir Arthur
Johnson, Sir Stanley
Raw, Lieutenant-Colonel N.


Coates, Major Sir Edward F.
Jones, Sir Edgar R. (Merthyr Tydvll)
Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel


Coats, Sir Stuart
Jones, J. T. (Carmarthen, Llanellyf
Roberts, Rt. Hon. G. H. (Norwich)


Cobb, Sir Cyril
Joynson-Hicks, Sir William
Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)


Colfox, Major Wm. Phillips
Kellaway, Rt. Hon. Fredk. George
Samuel, Rt. Hon. Sir H. (Norwood)


Conway, Sir W. Martin
King, Captain Henry Douglas
Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)


Coote, Colin Reith (Isle of Ely)
Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement
Sanders, Colonel Sir Robert A.


Davidson, J. C.C.(Hemel Hempstead)
Lambert, Rt. Hon. George
Sassoon, Sir Philip Albert Gustave D


Doyle, N. Grattan
Law, Rt. Hon. A. B. (Glasgow, C.)
Seddon, J. A.


Edwards, Allen C. (East Ham, S.)
Lewis, Rt. Hon. J. H. (Univ., Wales)
Shortt, Rt. Hon. E. (N'castle-on-T.)


Elliot, Capt. Walter E. (Lanark)
Lloyd, George Butler
Simm, M. T.


Eyres-Monsell, Commander B. M.
Lloyd-Greame, Major Sir P
Smith, Harold (Warrington)


Falcon, Captain Michael
Lonsdale, James Rolston
Steel, Major S. Strang


Falle, Major Sir Bertram G.
Lorden, John William
Sturrock, J. Leng


Flannery, Sir James Fortescue
Loseby, Captain C. E.
Surtees, Brigadier-General H. C.


Forrest, Walter
Lyle, C. E. Leonard
Sutherland, Sir William


Foxcroft, Captain Charles Talbot
McLaren, Robert (Lanark, Northern)
Taylor, J.


Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.
McMicking, Major Gilbert
Thomson, Sir W. Mitchell- (Maryhill)


Gibbs, Colonel George Abraham
Macnamara, Rt. Hon. Dr., T. J.
Thorpe, Captain John Henry


Gllbert, James Daniel
Macpherson, Rt. Hon. James I.
Tryon, Major George Clement


Goulding, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward A.
Maddocks, Henry
Watson, Captain John Bertrand


Green, Joseph F. (Leicester, W.)
Marks, Sir George Croydon
Williams, Aneurin (Durham, Consett)


Gregory, Holman
Martin, Captain A. E.
Williams, Lieut.-Com. C. (Tavistock)


Greig, Colonel James William
Mitchell, William Lane
Willoughby, Lieut.-Col. Hon. Claud


Gritten, W. G. Howard
Mond, Rt. Hon. Sir Alfred M.
Wilson, Colonel Leslie O. (Reading)


Hamilton, Major C. G. C.
Montagu, Rt. Hon. E. S.
Wise, Frederick


Hanson, Sir Charles Augustin
Moreing, Captain Algernon H.
Wood, Major S. Hill- (High Peak)


Harmsworth, C. B. (Bedford, Luton)
Mosley, Oswald
Worthington-Evans, Rt. Hon. Sir L.


Henry, Denis S. (Londonderry, S.)
Munro, Rt. Hon. Robert
Yeo, Sir Alfred William


Herbert, Dennis (Hertford, Watford)
Murray, C. D. (Edinburgh)
Young, Lieut.-Com. E. H. (Norwich)


Hewart, Rt. Hon. Sir Gordon
Nail, Major Joseph
Younger, Sir George


Hills, Major John Waller
Neal, Arthur



Hoare, Lieut-Colonel Sir S. J. G.
Newman, Colonel J. R. P. (Flnchley)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—




Lord E. Talbot and Mr. Parker.




NOES.


Adamson, Rt. Hon. William
Gray, Major Ernest (Accrington)
Newbould, Alfred Ernest


Adkins, Sir W. Ryland D.
Grundy, T. W.
Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)


Allen, Lieut.-Colonel William James
Hacking, Captain Douglas H.
Parry, Lieut.-Colonel Thomas Henry


Birchall, Major J. Dearman
Hall, F. (York, W. R. Normanton)
Rees, Capt. J. Tudor- (Barnstaple)


Bottomley, Horatio W.
Hartshorn, Vernon
Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)


Breese, Major Charles E.
Hayward, Major Evan
Roberts, Frederick O. (W. Bromwich)


Burn, T. H. (Belfast, St. Anne's)
Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (Widnes)
Royce, William Stapleton


Cairns, John
Henderson, Major V. L. (Tradeston)
Rutherford, Colonel Sir J. (Darwen)


Carson. Rt. Hon. Sir Edward H.
Hinds, John
Scott, A. M. (Glasgow, Bridgeton)


Clynes, Rt. Hon. J. R.
Hirst, G. H.
Sexton, James


Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Universities)
Hogge, James Myles
Shaw, William T. (Forfar)


Davies, A. (Lancaster, Clitheroe)
Holmes, J. Stanley
Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)


Davison, J. E. (Smethwlck)
Irving, Dan
Sitch, Charles H.


Denniss, Edmund R. B. (Oldham)
Jephcott, A. R.
Smith, W. R. (Wellingborough)


Donald, Thompson
Jones, J. J. (West Ham, Silvertown)
Tootill, Robert


Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)
Kenworthy, Lieut.-Commander J. M.
Waddington, R.


Edwards, G. (Norfolk, South)
HYl'Guffin, Samuel
Wignall, James


Edwards, Major J. (Aberavon)
Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan)
Wilson, W. Tyson (Westhoughton)


Frece, Sir Walter de
Maclean, Rt. Hn. Sir D. (Midlothian)
Wood, Major M. M. (Aberdeen, C.)


Galbraith, Samuel
Mills, John Edmund
Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)


Glanviile, Harold James
Murray, Dr. D. (Inverness and Ross)



Graham, R. (Nelson and Colne)
Murray, John (Leeds, West)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Graham, W. (Edinburgh, Central)
Myers, Thomas
Mr. Sugden and Mr. Tom Shaw.

Clause accordingly read a Second time.

Mr. T. WILSON: I beg to move, in Sub-section (1), after the word may [The Secretary of State may"], to insert the words, upon the joint application of the employer or employers and the organisation or organisations of the workpeople concerned, and."
Any Order that is made ought to be made at the request of the people who are directly concerned, and it ought to be made at the request, not of the employers and the workpeople in one factory, but of the representatives of the industry. The feeling is that in new legislation of this kind everyone concerned ought to have an opportunity of saying whether he
approves of it or of an Order being made. I can quite see that if it is made easy for the employers to get an Order made for the two-shift system to be applied to their factory and not to the industry we are going to have industrial trouble, and I am certain neither the Government nor anyone in the House representing either Labour or the employing classes wants that. If we wish to make headway at all we must all pull together, and with the object of making the Clause palatable and more acceptable to the people concerned I beg to move.

Lieut. - CommanderKENWORTHY: May I ask, on a point of Order, to which Clause this applies? Is it the new Clause we have just passed?

Mr. SPEAKER: That is the only one it could be.

Mr. T. SHAW: I support the Amendment for the same reason as has been stated by my hon. Friend. It is essential that we should have the utmost clarity in this matter. I am not quite certain whether the proposed Amendment of the Home Secretary does not meet the case even better than our own. At any rate it will prevent an Order being made at the will of one side to the bargain. We desire, when the Clause had been carried, as we knew it would be, to make certain that there should really be agreement before Orders were made in any trade whatever, and that was the object of this Amendment. I should like the Home Secretary to tell us whether his Amendment does not deal with exactly the same point, and if it does I think we might reasonably withdraw this. It seemed to me that the Home Secretary's Amendment dealt with this point.

Mr. SEXTON: Negatively.

Mr. SHAW: It seemed to me that what the Home Secretary said was that no industry should have this Order applied to it unless there was consent on the part of the majority of the operatives and the employers in the trade. Or, if that were not the remark, perhaps this is what he said, that if there was an objection on the part of the employers or a majority of the workpeople against it—

Mr. SHORTT: A joint objection.

Mr. SHAW: That leaves us in the position that, if one of the sides is agreed, the Home Secretary may make an Order in face of the opposition of the other. If we use the conjunction and—employers and employed—obviously it means that if one of the sides falls away the Home Secretary's promise does not stand.

Mr. SHORTT: No, the promise I made would stand.

Mr. SHAW: Then we shall have to keep to this Amendment, that the employers and employed must declare their readiness before an Order shall be issued for any particular trade. I think that is a perfectly fair thing to do. If employers and employed in any particular trade do not agree I think it would be wrong to take a retrograde step of this description in face of opposition from either of the parties concerned. It is now our keen desire to see that, so far as possible, the Clause shall not be abused, and that when it becomes an Act of Parliament it will not be interpreted on the lines of what the Home Secretary for the time being may decide. The powers will be definitely given to any Home Secretary, and we may be faced with a Home Secretary who applies the letter of the law, and, without taking into account the feelings of either workpeople or employers, may make an Order. Obviously he cannot do it very well without the consent of the employer, because it will be the employer who applies to have the concession made. It can only be the worker who is the objecting party, and it can only be the worker who can be injured, and I feel that we must, in face of what the Home Secretary has said, stick to our Amendment.

Mr. SHORTT: I am afraid it is quite impossible that I should ask the House to accept this Amendment as it stands. The proposal is that in any factory or workshop an application can be made to have an Order for a two-shift system. Obviously the application for permission would not be made unless both sides were agreed, because without the agreement of both sides it would be unworkable. But suppose you have a factory or group of factories where both sides agree and say, We want an Order made in these terms. You might then have an association of
employers on the one hand or a trade union connected with the industry on the other who would say, Very well. You people may be agreed, but we do not like it. If both the employers' organisation and the workmen's organisation agree that an Order should not be made in an individual factory or group of factories, even though the workpeople and the employer in that factory agree, I am prepared to accept that that should stop it; but supposing the whole trade unions of the industry agree that those factories should have an Order and the employers object, or if the employers all agree in the industry and the trade union objects, I should not be prepared to accept a provision that that shall stop the making of the Orders. But, equally, I do not think it is feasible that I should agree that before making an Order in an individual factory the Department would have to consult the trade as a whole. What I am prepared to accept is this. When an Order is made on the application of a factory or group of factories, then if a representation is made by an organisation representing the majority of employers and an organisation representing a majority of the workpeople saying that in the industry as a whole the majority of both sides agree that these Orders ought not to be made, then I agree that there should be a provision put in that no Order should be made. I cannot accept more than that. If that would meet the views of my right hon. and hon. Friends opposite I should be glad. If the majority of the employers and the majority of the workers in any industry disapprove of the making of these Orders after the Order is made they can make a representation. If they make no representation the Order goes on. If they are agreed, and they make a representation against the Order, the Order would cease, and any Order that had been made under this Section would have to be cancelled. That is my proposal.

Sir D. MACLEAN: If my right hon. Friend would read out the words that he proposes it would be for the convenience of the House. It is extremely difficult to follow the matter now. So much turns on two or three words.

Mr. SHORTT: My proposal is this:
Provided that the Secretary of State shall not have power to make an Order under this Section in respect of a factory
or workshop in any industry if a joint representation is made to him by an organisation representing the majority of the employers and workers in that industry to the effect that Orders under this Section ought not to be made in respect of factories and workshops in that industry.
I was going to add words such as these:
Provided also that any Order made previously to such representation shall be cancelled within a certain time after the receipt of the representation.

Mr. SEXTON: Supposing that one side made an application for an Order and the other side objected: would you then put the Order into operation?

Mr. SHORTT: No, and for this simple reason, that the Order is useless unless both sides are agreed. It is no use making an Order giving permission to work two-shifts when clearly they are not going to work two-shifts.

Mr. G. ROBERTS: The right hon. Gentleman will have to recognise that if the two-shift system is to be adopted it can only work smoothly with the concurrence of both sides, and he will have to recognise also that the Government have definitely recommended a scheme of industrial organisation to the country. When I was at the Ministry of Labour the Government instructed me to recommend to the employers and the trade unions the adoption of a scheme of Joint Industrial Councils, and I respectfully submit to my right hon. Friend and the Government that they ought to recognise those Councils as the representative bodies in the various trades.

Mr. SHORTT: We are dealing now with a provision by which the whole industry can regulate the whole industry. I am quite prepared to agree that an application should be made by the Whitley Council in respect of any factory or group of factories.

Mr. ROBERTS: Perhaps I have not followed my right hon. Friend sufficiently, If that is the intention of his Amendment, well and good.

Mr. SHORTT: This Amendment is dealing with the regulation of the industry by the trades unions and employers' associations in that industry. I understand my right hon. Friend is referring to an application by an individual factory. I am quite prepared in the case of an individual factory or group of factories to
agree that the application should come from both sides.

Mr. ROBERTS: What I want to convey is that whenever my right hon. Friend has a case submitted to him where in any industry it is desired or it is desirable that the two-shift system should be adopted, the right hon. Gentleman should then approach the Joint Industrial Council in that industry, or failing the Joint Industrial Council, the Wages Board which deals with the conditions of that industry. By that method he would be able to meet nearly every case. It is certain that if you are going to give one firm the right to adopt the two-shift system all competitors must necessarily be affected, adversely or otherwise. That may have the effect of extending the principle throughout the industry beyond its actual necessity, because of the fact that a new set of competitive conditions are created. My right hon. Friend would be well advised to accept the spirit of the Amendment now proposed because unless you carry the whole trade through these representative bodies, the central council, or the district councils, or the works committees, anything you do must cause irritation and will inflame the feelings that undoubtedly exist throughout the country. The Government in recommending a scheme of Joint Industrial Councils to the country entrusted each industry with the task of conducting its own affairs. I want Parliament to interfere as little as possible, legislatively, with industry.

Sir F. BANBURY: You are coming round to my point of view.

Mr. ROBERTS: The right hon. Gentleman says that I am coming nearer to his point of view. I have been fairly consistent in my advocacy of the system of joint industrial councils. I advocated something of the sort prior to their having been created. These are the bodies, recommended by the Government, that should be held responsible for the conduct of the general affairs in industry. Unless my right hon. Friend is able to carry their concurrence he will not be able to administer anything that he is pro posing to-night. For the sake of peace and efficiency in industry he ought to adopt the spirit of the proposal emanating from the other side, although he may perhaps find better words for carrying it into effect.

Major HILLS: I agree with a great deal of the speech of the right hon. Gentleman, and may I make a suggestion to the Government? It is very difficult for us to consider now the exact extent of an Amendment which we have only just heard. Would it not be better to withdraw the Amendment which has been proposed, on the understanding that an Amendment bearing on that point shall be moved in another place. As I understand the object of the Amendment, it is to enable trade to determine its own destiny. When we look back to the Factory Acts, we find a code built up for the protection of women. That code originated when women were weak industrially and had no political power. Things have changed. Women are organising and they have the vote. Ultimately they will be in the same position as the large trade unions, and they and the employers between them will fix the conditions of industry. We have to tide over till that time, and I do not want any Amendment to block the road which leads women to their industrial future. They are stronger than they were and their political power is now established by statute, and in the end we shall cease to regulate them entirely by factory laws, which have been very useful in the past. I hope my right hon. Friend will consider my suggestion very carefully, because I think it is most valuable. The House is very grateful to my right hon. Friend the Member for Norwich (Mr. G. Boberts), and I think that here we have a solution of a very difficult question.

Mr. SHORTT: I should be very glad, and I think it would be very advisable, that there should be an opportunity of my Amendment being put on the Paper. I have had an opportunity of a conversation with my right hon. Friend (Mr. Roberts), and we have quite agreed. His proposal and my proposal are the same, and I think that when my proposal is put down it will be found that what I propose is, in fact, the same that my right hon. Friend proposes. I am perfectly willing, if it is agreeable, that I should bring in an Amendment on the lines advocated by myself and my right hon. Friend in another place.

Sir D. MACLEAN: It is important that we should have this matter perfectly clear. The proposal by the right hon.
Member for Norwich is that this should only be applied where the industry asks for it.

Mr. SHORTT: indicated dissent.

Sir D. MACLEAN: Where agreement has been reached. It is important to get employés working together. The Home Secretary assents to the proposition that there is no use trying to force this on an industry if the two sides are not working together. Friction would ensue, which you want to avoid. What this Amendment proposes is that you should apply the system when you have agreement, and ostensibly you get agreement when it is asked for by the employers and the workpeople concerned. That is what the right hon. Member for Norwich really means. If this is to be dealt with in another place and not here we may find ourselves in some difficulty. It may come back to us, perhaps after 11 o'clock at night, when only a few of us are here, and this most important matter may have been dealt with in a way quite contrary to the intentions of a large number of Members. My right hon. Friend (Mr. Shortt) says he substantially agrees with that.

Mr. SHORTT: No. I said that my right hon. Friend (Mr. Roberts) and I were agreed.

Sir D. MACLEAN: What is the difference? I want to get it clear.

Mr. SHORTT: The difference is this: As I explained to my right hon. Friend the Member for Norwich, I am quite prepared to have a provision put in that the application in regard to an individual factory or group of factories must be a joint application by the employers and the workpeople in that factory or group of factories but not of the whole trade. Where the whole trade are agreed, through the Whitley Councils, or in any other way, they can then step in if they disapprove, and register their disapproval, and then automatically the Orders in that industry will cease, and the Orders made under this Section will be cancelled. The original application is to be made by agreement and by the workpeople and employers concerned in the particular factory or workshop.

Sir D. MACLEAN: That makes a substantial difference in my attitude. I regret that we had not the Amendment
on the Paper and that we should be left to the very nebulous position of a discussion in another place, and where if the position is not met in accordance with what the majority of this House now desires, we may be left with a discussion after 11 o'clock at night. I do not know whether my right hon. Friend can circulate a White Paper so that we may know what his proposals are before the Bill reaches another place; then we shall be on the look out when it comes back here and know their ideas and our ideas, which I hope may be in agreement, and if not we shall know what line to take.

Mr. SEDDON: I would join with my right hon. Friend the Member for Norwich in urging that it is essential that, if Orders are to be granted, it must be in conjunction with both sides; but we have got to be careful. The right hon. Gentleman is in the same difficulty as I am in in finding words to come to a considered conclusion. The case presents itself of the glass trade, which has caused me to take the interest which I have taken in this particular Bill. It does not come within the purview of my own constituency, but it does in my own town, which is as near as any constituency in the country. In that industry there has been going on an amalgamation of industries. From what was said on the other side, I should have assumed that hon. Members speaking for the other sections would be opposed to the glass industry. They have themselves in conjunction with the employers established all these councils, but if it is to be left to the whole organisation they would turn down the requirements of 95 per cent, of those in the glass trade, and I want to avoid anything in the nature of complications which would make the last position worse than the first. What we want in these Orders is that protection should be given, but that no injury should be inflicted on any particular section of the industry.

Mr. SHORTT: I hope that I have made clear the lines on which I would ask the House to act—upon the joint application of the employer or employers and the majority of workpeople concerned. That would cover the question of agreement before the application is made in respect of particular factories, and, if my hon. Friend agreed, I would move to re-commit the Bill for the purpose of con-
sidering the matter further, and I will put the proposal on the Paper to-night so that hon. Members can consider it.

Sir R. ADKINS: As I understand, the particular Amendment is to be put on the Paper to-night and to be decided when the Bill is taken again.

Mr. BARTLEY DENNISS: May I ask that if the words organisation or organisations are left out, and we leave in the words the majority of the workpeople concerned, what is meant by the workpeople concerned? Is it the workpeople concerned in the particular mill or factory? That would not meet the case. Take the case of an employer, the owner of a mill, who applied for an Order, and his workpeople backed him up, while the other people in the industry, the trade unions and the people in the other works, objected. Apparently it would have no effect unless they both agreed. The workpeople in the particular factory may be induced by the employer by higher wages, or the prospect of continuous employment, to join with the employer in making a joint application, and he will get a great, an improper, and an undue advantage over the other mill owners who cannot get the Order from the Secretary of State, because he can produce twice as much stuff from the same mill premises, paying only the rates and taxes of one mill and one set of machinery, and he will always be able to collect a sufficient number of people from a large trade to come to his mill to have extra wages. So that putting in the words the majority of workpeople concerned would not meet the case. The Labour party and Members from Lancashire have seen the point which I have made. We do not want to have an abortive discussion to-morrow. The Home Secretary has an idea that if there is joint representation of the organisation of the employer and the workman that would solve the situation. Again, that will not; because, supposing the employés back it up and the trade unions object, then there would be a strike and the industry would be plunged into chaos. I can see that in the cotton industry quite plainly. Either there would be a joint application by the employer and trade unions, or either the trade unions or the employers would ob-
ject, and then the Order ought not to be made.

Mr. R. GRAHAM: Then in any trade you might have two systems in operation—the single-shift system in some mills and the double shift in others.

Mr. SHORTT: You have now.

Mr. GRAHAM: I am surprised to hear that. It does not seem to me possible. It seems to me that if an employer in any trade adopted the two-shift system, which is supposed to be more economical than the single-shift system, other employers will be obliged by competition to adopt the same system. Consequently, if in any trade a few employers who with their workers constituted a very small minority of the employers and workpeople in that trade adopt that system, then it becomes compulsory on the other employers to adopt it in competition, or upon the other employers and upon the workpeople to resist its continuance by the firm by which it has been adopted.

Captain ELLIOT: In such an enormously important industrial change as that which we are considering with a very small attendance, we should not come to any definite decision to-night. I particularly ask the right hon. Gentleman to reconsider the question of an industrial council which is constituted jointly of employers and employed where the women employés have not been allowed to join a trade union, and consequently have no representation whatever on the Joint Industrial Council, and it may be that the Joint Industrial Council might take some very arbitrary action in that case. I would not have brought the matter up if such arbitrary action had not been taken some weeks ago in the case of the women bakers. I do not wish to cast any reflection on the trade unions, but in that case apparently the Joint Industrial Council has found itself unable to intervene or take any decision in the case of what may be the most grave injustice, namely, the dismissal of women who have been employed in a trade previous to the War, a dismissal in consequence of an agreement come to afterwards. That is an instance of possible injustice by a joint industrial council to women employés. I understand that the Home Secretary intends to have this discussion continued to-morrow. It would be very rash if any decision were come to on the matter just now in an empty House, when one con-
sider's the tremendous Debate that took place over this very point as long ago as 1850, when the two-shift system was being mooted after Lord Shaftesbury's great Act was carried, and it convulsed the, whole country; and that we should decide on this point in a half-empty House would be one of the greatest disasters that could happen to the prestige of the House of Commons.

Mr. T. WILSON: There is some difference between the right hon. Gentleman's proposals and this Amendment. Perhaps it is not so great as some of us may think, but in matters of legislation I am in favour of direct action, and I would suggest that the right hon. Gentleman's proposal is going round by X.Y.Z. to get to A.B.C. What we propose is that before the order is made the Home Secretary should be satisfied that the majority of people concerned who are interested in the industry are willing that the two-shift system should be introduced. What he proposes is, that if one or more mills, workshops, or factories apply for an order to be made to work the two-shift system he will make an order, but that if the majority of those in the industry object to that order he is going to cancel the order. I prefer before the order is made, with the object of preventing friction, that he should satisfy himself that the majority of the people concerned are willing. It is a great deal easier to make an order when the people concerned are willing to have the order made than to make it and have it cancelled afterwards. I understand that the Home Secretary is going to recommit the Bill, and on the understanding that the whole question can be raised when the Bill is recommitted, I do not press for a decision upon this now either from the House or from the right hon. Gentleman, and am prepared to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. T. WILSON: I beg to move, in Sub-section (1) to leave out the word six [at any time between the hours of six in the morning and ten in the evening"], and to insert instead thereof the word seven.
8.0 P.M.
That means that women and young persons would not have to rise at five o'clock in the morning, and that they would be able to start work at seven o'clock instead of six I have lived in
a manufacturing town for 34 years. When following my own trade I have had to rise at 5.30 in the morning, and it made my heart bleed to see little children going through the slush and snow and getting wet through before they reached their work. It has always seemed to me that seven o'clock is early enough for boys and girls to start work.

Major HILLS: I would suggest that the Amendment depends largely on the form which the promised Amendment of the Home Secretary will take. We are dealing with a restriction on women's labour that does not apply to men's labour. A man can go to work at any time that he likes during the twenty-four hours. At present women cannot work before six in the morning or after eight at night, and this Clause is proposed to extend the hours to ten. The House must not lose sight of the fact that we are removing a restriction and placing women to a certain extent in the same position as men. Suppose that the Amendment of the Home Secretary, when we see it, really gives self-determination, it should then go a long way towards leaving the hours as they are in the Clause. I do not like an hour as early as six or as late as ten o'clock, but it is for the people themselves to say when they work, and I think we should be far better advised to leave it to them than try to lay down restrictions. I would remind members of the Labour party of that which they have forgotten, namely, that the restrictions on women's labour are to protect women and not to protect men. I think they sometimes imagine that they have a right to restrict women's labour, and just because the Factory Act contains certain restrictions they object to their being withdrawn. I hope they will not insist on that attitude. I am sure that in their heatrs they stand for equality. The best way to get equality is to let people determine things for themselves. My own vote on the question of hours will be largely determined by the form of the Amendment promised by the Home Secretary.

Major GRAY: The argument of the last speaker indicates that it will be wise to postpone all further discussion on this Bill at this stage.

Mr. SHORTT: Not on the whole Bill, but on this Clause.

Major GRAY: I spoke somewhat strongly on Friday against the proposal to have young persons employed at this very early hour of the day, bearing in mind also that they have not the advantages which young people possessed some time ago, because six o'clock is really five o'clock by Greenwich time in the summer months. The institution of summer-time was designed to give long evenings, and the worst of it is that young people take advantage of the long evenings, and curtail the hours of sleep, which are so very important. Strongly as I am disposed to vote for seven o'clock, my view might be materially modified when I see the Home Secretary's promised Amendment. I do not know whether I should be in order in moving any Motion which would have the effect of postponing further discussion, but I hope the suggestion will appeal to the Home Secretary.

Mr. SHORTT: I am in the hands of the House entirely.

Sir D. MACLEAN: The suggestion of hon. Members opposite would, I think, tend very much to a better and more informative discussion on the Amendments. The idea, I understand, is that the Home Secretary should get the rest of the Bill and leave this Clause to be started ab initio with his Amendment, which will govern the whole of the Amendments now on the Paper.

Mr. T. WILSON: I do not wish to put the House to any inconvenience. If we delay the discussion of Amendments now it may mean that we shall come to agreement more quickly later on. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Proposed Clause added to the Bill.

PREAMBLE.

Whereas at Washington, on the twenty-eighth day of November nineteen hundred and nineteen, a general conference of the International Labour Organisation of the League of Nations adopted three conventions containing (together with other provisions) the provisions set out in Part I., Part II. and Part III. of the Schedule to this Act, and it is expedient that for the purpose of carrying out the said conventions the provisions hereinafter contained should have effect.

Mr. SHORTT: I beg to move, after the word Act [Schedule to this Act, and it is expedient], to insert the words:
And whereas at Genoa on the ninth day of July, nineteen hundred and twenty, a general conference of the International Labour Organisation of the League of Nations adopted a convention containing (together with other provisions) the provisions set out in Part IV. of the Schedule to this Act:
And whereas.
This is one of a series of Amendments, and it will be clear to the House why they are proposed. Since the Bill was brought in a Convention has been entered into by the International Labour Organisation of the League of Nations, and the purpose of these Amendments is to ratify that Convention together with the Convention agreed to at Washington. This Convention deals with the employment of children in ships. Hon. Members will see the Convention set out in the form of a Schedule on the Order Paper.

Amendment agreed to.

CLAUSE 1.—(Restrictions on the employment of women, young persons, and children in industrial undertakings.)

(1) No child shall be employed in any industrial undertaking.

(4) This Section, so far as it relates to employment in coal mines, metalliferous mines and quarries, and factories and workshops, shall have effect as if it formed part of the Coal Mines Act, 1911, the Metalliferous Mines Regulation Acts, 1872 and 1875, and the Factory and Workshops Acts, 1901 to 1911, respectively; and the provisions of those Acts relating to registers to be kept there under shall apply to the registers required to be kept under this Act.

In the case of employment in any place other than the places aforesaid—

(a) If any person employs a child or a young person in contravention of this Act, he shall be deemed to have employed a child or young person in contravention of the Employment of Children Act, 1903, and Sub-sections (1) and (2) of Section five and Section six and Section eight of that Act shall apply accordingly as if they were herein re-enacted and in terms made applicable to children and young persons within the meaning of this Act; and
(b) If any person being the employer of a young person fails to keep such a register so required to be kept as aforesaid, or refuses or neglects when required to produce it for inspection by an officer of a local authority under the said Act, he shall be liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding twenty pounds; and

Amendments made: At the end of Subsection (1) insert a new Sub-section—
(2) No child shall be employed in any ship except to the extent to which and in the circumstances in which such employment is permitted under the Convention set out in Part IV. of the Schedule to this Act.

At the end of Sub-section (3) insert a new Sub-section—
(5) There shall be included in every agreement with the crew entered into under the Merchant Shipping Act, 1894, a list of the young persons under the age of sixteen years who are members of the crew, together with particulars of the duets of their birth, and, in the case of a ship in which there is no such agreement, the master of the ship shall, if young persons under the age of sixteen years are employed therein, keep a register of those persons with particulars of the dates of their birth and of the dates on which they become or cease to be members of the crew, and the register so kept shall at all times be open to inspection.

In Sub-section (4) after the word Act [kept under this Act"] insert the words—
This Section, so far as it relates to employment in a ship, shall have effect as if it formed part of the Merchant Shipping Acts, 1894 to 1920.

In Sub-section (4), after the word aforesaid [other than the places aforesaid"], insert the words or in any ship."

In Sub-section (4, a), after the word person [a young person in contra vention"], insert the words in any industrial undertaking.

At the end of Sub-section (4, a), insert a new paragraph—
(b) If any child is employed in any ship in contravention of this Act, the master of the ship shall be liable for each offence to a fine not exceeding forty shillings or, in the case of a second or subsequent offence, not exceeding five pounds, and where a child is taken into employment in any ship in contravention of this Act on the production, by or with the private of the parent, of a false or forged certificate or on the false representation of his parent that the child is of an age at which such employment is not in contravention of this Act, that parent shall be liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding forty shillings.

In Sub-section (4, b), after the word kept, insert the words by him.

At the end of Sub-section (4, b), insert a new paragraph—
(d)If the master of a ship fails to keep such a register so required to be kept by him as aforesaid, or refuses or neglects when required to produce it for inspection by an officer of the Board of Trade or any other
person having power to enforce compliance with the provisions of the Merchant Shipping Acts, 1894 to 1920, he shall be liable to a fine not exceeding twenty pounds; and.—[Mr. Shortt.]

CLAUSE 2.—(Savings.)

(2) Nothing in this Act shall apply to an industrial undertaking in which only members of the same family are employed.

(3) Nothing in this Act shall prevent the employment in any industrial undertaking of a child lawfully so employed at the commencement of this Act.

Amendments made: In Sub-section (2), after the word undertaking, insert the words or ship.

In Sub-section (3), after the word undertaking, insert the words or ship.—(Mr. Shortt.)

CLAUSE 3.—(Interpretation.)

In this Act—

The expression night means any period of eleven consecutive hours which includes the period between nine in the evening and six in the morning;

The expression industrial undertaking has, with respect to the employment of children, young persons, and women, the meanings respectively assigned thereto in the Conventions Bet out in Parts I., II., and III. of the Schedule to this Act.

Amendments made: Leave out the words
The expression 'night' means any period of eleven consecutive hours which includes the period between nine in the evening and six in the morning.

At the end of the Clause insert the words
The expression 'ship' means any sea-going ship or boat of any description which is registered in the United Kingdom as a British ship and includes any British fishing boat entered in the fishing boat register.—[Mr. Shortt.]

SCHEDULE.

PART III.

CONVENTION CONCERNING THE NIGHT WOKK OF WOMEN EMPLOYED IN INDUSTRY.

Article 6.

In industrial undertakings which are influenced by the seasons and in all cases where exceptional circumstances demand it, the night period may be reduced to ten hours on sixty days of the year.

Amendment proposed: At the end of Article 6, to insert

PART IV.

Convention fixing the minimum age for admission of children to employment at sea.

Article 1.

For the purpose of this Convention the term vessel includes all ships and boats, of any nature whatsoever, engaged in maritime navigation, whether publicly or privately owned: it excludes ships of war.

Article 2.

Children under the age of fourteen years shall not be employed or work on vessels other than vessels upon which only members of the same family are employed.

Article 3.

The provisions of Article 2 shall not apply to work done by children on school ships or training ships, provided that such work is approved and supervised by public authority.

Article 4.

In order to facilitate the enforcement of the provisions of this Convention, every shipmaster shall be required to keep a register of all persons under the age of sixteen years employed on board his vessel, or a list of them in the articles of agreement, and of the dates of their births.—[Mr. Shortt.]

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: I wish to move, as an Amendment to the proposed Amendment, in Article 1, to leave out the words it excludes ships of war.

Mr. SPEAKER: These words are in a Convention agreed to at Genoa. You cannot amend that Convention. It could have been amended only at Genoa.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: If we have the right to ratify the Convention have we not the right to amend it?

Mr. SPEAKER: This is being inserted in the Schedule for the purpose of information. It is exactly what has been agreed to at Genoa. No Amendment can alter the Convention which has been agreed to by the different States.

Lieut. -Commander KENWORTHY: This does not in any way limit the scope of the Convention.

Mr. SPEAKER: The question before us is the Convention approved by the League of Nations, which we cannot alter.

Amendment agreed to.

Bill re-committed to a Committee of the Whole House for to-morrow in respect of the new Clause (Employment of women and young persons in shifts") inserted on Consideration—[Mr. Shortt]—and to be printed. [Bill 246.]

Orders of the Day — CRIMINAL INJURIES (IRELAND) BILL.

As amended (in the Standing Committee,) considered.

CLAUSE 3.—(Attachment of rates to answer decrees for compensation for criminal injuries. 27 & 28 Vict. C. 99).

Any decree made against a county council whether before or after the passing of this Act for compensation for criminal injuries may, irrespective of the amount recovered, be removed to the High Court on certiorari under Section nine of the Civil Bill Courts Procedure Amendment Act (Ireland), 1864, and any rates payable by any ratepayer to the council may, as well as any other debts due to the council, lie attached to answer the amount recovered by the decree when so removed, together with the costs of or incidental to the proceedings in the High Court, including the costs of the removal.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: I beg to move to leave out the Clause.
This is a highly objectionable Clause. Hon. Members will observe that where compensation has been passed the rates can be attached for the amount of the injury, and the property of any ratepayer can, I believe, be levied on, and those ratepayers compelled to pay their rates to the High Court. Even for Ireland, as things are now, I put it that this is an altogether uncivilised proposal. We are going to pick out one or two wealthy ratepayers, and to say that they are to pay the rates direct to the High Court. That seems to be contrary to what I consider fair judicial practice. When the Second Reading of this Bill was under consideration, some of us on this side objected on the ground that destruction of property in Ireland was taking place by action of the servants of the Crown. The Government hotly disputed that until about a fortnight ago, when the Chief Secretary for Ireland admitted that his servants had destroyed certain property in the shape of creameries, factories, and private houses. During the Second Reading we tried hard to secure from the Government some statement as to how claims for those creameries, factories, and private houses actually destroyed by servants of the Crown not in pursuit of their lawful occupations and as a sort of reprisal were going to be met and who was to pay them. We got nothing definite from the Government.
Their principal line of defence apparently was that it was quite impossible for servants of the Crown under any circumstances to set fire to private property except in shooting rebels. The admission which has been made alters, I submit, the whole justification for this Bill.
I do not want at this stage to go into the whys and wherefores and pros and cons of such destruction as that has been debated at length on one or two occasions. I simply deal now with the purely legal question of financial claims due to such destruction. In a Debate last week the Chief Secretary told us that he would be the judge on reparation to decide who should pay these claims. That is very unsatisfactory. The Chief Secretary is necessarily more on this side of St. George's Channel than the other. These claims have to be adjudicated on daily by County Court judges in Ireland, and the Chief Secretary must rely on statements of his own servants in deciding whether reparation should be afforded or not. I think without some more definite statement we should not pass this Clause which enforces claims against ratepayers for damage in the neighbourhood, which is now admitted by the Government to have been committed without real provocation and without real excuse and without real justification by servants of the Crown. I hope the Government will see their way, at any rate, to withdraw this Clause, and in view of the conditions in Ireland to carefully reconsider the whole Bill.

Mr. MYERS: I beg to second the Amendment. It is distinctly unfair to impose a penalty on the same people upon whom the injury has been inflicted. After damage has been done in a given place, it may not be the whole of the ratepayers who have been affected, but a number of them, and when we impose a charge upon the rates for the injury done, we impose a charge on the Whole of the ratepayers, both those who have suffered and those who have not. A further injustice in the Clause is found in the fact that if an individual ratepayer owes rates to the council and the council has not sufficient in its coffers to meet the responsibility, the rates of the individual can be intercepted without them being handed over to the local authority, and there is also the provision that any debts due to the council can be intercepted.
From every point of view it appears there is an injustice, whether applied to the individual or the authority as a whole.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL for IRELAND (Mr. Denis Henry): Two points have been suggested against this Clause. The first is that there is some injustice to the ratepayer whose debt to the Council is attached for the purpose of meeting a decree for malicious injuries. There is absolutely no injustice. Suppose either of my hon. Friends was a ratepayer in the city of Belfast, and suppose the city of Belfast refused to pay the very heavy claims which are being made against it by persons who have suffered injury! A poor man who has his shop destroyed is entitled by the law to claim against the city, and he gets a decree for £500, say, but if the city say they will not pay, but that they will go on levying their rates and collecting them, where is the injustice in that man going to a court of law and saying, You, the city of Belfast, will not pay me, but another persons owes you a sum of money, and I will levy on that sum of money for the purpose of paying your debt. We have simply said that if a person has a decree against a public authority, and if the authority refuse to pay, and they have ratepayers who owe them money, that person can go and swear an affidavit in the High Court of Justice setting out these facts, and he gets an order to attach this debt. There is no injustice to the ratepayer, because he simply pays one person instead of another, and the fact that he pays under an order of the Court gives him a discharge as against the corporation or the county council for his rates.

Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: The right hon. and learned Gentleman will see that under this Clause it will be possible to pick out certain wealthy ratepayers and make them pay the whole of their rates in this way

Mr. HENRY: If my hon. and gallant Friend will think for a moment, he will see that, no matter whether you pick a man out or not, he is only paying once. If I pick out a wealthy ratepayer for this purpose, it is immaterial to him whether he pays the corporation or otherwise, so long as he only pays once. The hon. and gallant Member seems to suffer under a delusion which he had on the Second Reading of the Bill, and doubtless this is my fault, because I thought I had
explained the matter then. All that will happen will be that the particular ratepayer will be served with an Order of the King's Bench Division in Ireland, and will pay the person who has got the decree and then be free from his liability to rates. If he did not get that Order, he would be sued or detrained for rates by the corporation. If an English corporation refused to pay its liabilities, you would not hesitate for a moment to put in such a provision. That is all we ask, and I do not think it is an unreasonable thing. This is not a one-sided Bill by any means; it is not a case where only the Unionists or Loyalists will reap the benefit of the Act. The amount of compensation claimed—I am speaking in the hearing of the hon. Member for the Falls Division (Mr. Devlin)—in Belfast is over £1,000,000, and I am sure his constituents are largely interested. They will have exactly the same remedies, and I do not think that he objects to having those remedies for his constituents in the way I have suggested.
The second point made by hon. Members is that there should be some Clause introduced into this Bill dealing with claims made by persons against servants of the Crown who have committed or who are alleged to have committed acts coming within the purview of the Act, but the entire Bill deals with the question of rates, and there is no suggestion of any kind for any Imperial charge of the kind suggested, because my hon. and gallant Friend's suggestion moans that a claim should be made against the Imperial Government. My right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary has already dealt with that, and it is quite impossible in this Bill to deal with that matter.

Amendment negatived.

Motion made, and Question proposed, That the Bill be now read the Third time.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: I am not altogether satisfied with the last part of the statement of my right hon. and learned Friend. It is just what we do suggest that where it is brought home to the Crown, as it has been in at least two cases, that this property has been destroyed by servants of the Crown, the Imperial Exchequer should pay; I think that is only right and just, and even my
hon. Friend from Belfast opposite (Mr. Moles) will admit that. This is a very big matter, and I think we might have some more considered declaration on that point before we give the Bill a Third Reading. I daresay we cannot at this stage of the Bill put anything in, but a statement from my right hon. and learned Friend would decide some of us how to vote on the Third Reading. On the Second Reading the right hon. and learned Gentleman made this declaration, that if soldiers and police have illegally, without orders, destroyed property, they come under the meaning of the Act that they are an unlawful assembly and can be proceeded against accordingly. But suppose they are acting under orders—that is the point. There have been cases where cottagers have been awakened at night by officers—

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER (Mr. Whitley): On the Third Reading the hon. and gallant Member can only deal with what is in the Bill. The hon. and gallant Member would have been quite right on Second Reading to have dealt with this point, but the Third Reading is more restricted, and he must confine himself to what is in the Bill.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: I do not wish, of course, in any way to transgress your ruling, but Clause 7 of the Bill deals with assembly, and says that the criminal injuries provision shall be applied as in the original Act. I would beg for some more specific statement from my right hon. and learned Friend on that one point. I do not wish to delay the Third Reading.

Mr. DEVLIN: In view of your ruling, Sir, I do not like to occupy the time of the House, but I really think some consideration ought to be given to the suggestion made by my hon. and gallant Friend. It was in the intermittent stage between the Second Reading of the Bill and the present stage of the Bill that the Chief Secretary for Ireland gave, to my mind, a rather unsatisfactory assurance that this matter would be considered. In my opinion, we are entitled to a clear and an emphatic declaration from the Government as to what they propose to do in relation to that destroyed property, the destruction of which was due to the conduct of the representatives of the Crown in Ireland.
It did seem to me an extraordinary thing that in a place like Fermoy, where—and it was admitted by the Government that the property was destroyed by the officers of the Crown—some of the largest ratepayers in the town were the owners of the property destroyed, that these people must go to the County Council for compensation, and that they must pay themselves for the damage that was done to their property. That seems to be an absolutely indefensible position for the Government to take up, and, in my judgment, it is nearly time that the Government ought to say what they propose to do with regard to this destroyed property, whether we are to depend merely upon the airy declaration of the Chief Secretary that he will consider special cases or whether—and this really touches the very root of the question—he will appoint a Committee of Reparations to go into the whole question of the destruction of property by, as is alleged, and which can be proved, his own servants in Ireland. We have never had such a declaration from the Government. No doubt what the right hon. and learned Gentleman States is perfectly true, that we are dealing now with the rates, but a Clause of this character ought to have been in the Bill itself dealing with the compensation to be paid to innocent victims of this policy of pogroms which has been carried on by the military, the Black and Tans, or whoever have been carrying on this policy in the name of the British Government in Ireland. I really think the Government have been guilty of a gross dereliction of duty in not taking advantage, which their own Bill offered to them, of dealing with this question, and not compel large ratepayers, whose property has been destroyed by the uniformed officers of the Crown, to compensate themselves for the destruction of their own property.

Mr. HENRY: My hon. and learned Friend who has just sat down has very accurately stated the scope of this Bill when he says it is a matter of the rates. The other matter he put forward is a matter dealing, not merely with the local ratepayers in Ireland, but also with the ratepayers in England and Scotland, and he can hardly expect me, on a Bill of this kind, to deal with the very much wider question of the Imperial liability in respect of raids which have been described as having been committed by servants of
the Crown. My right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary has admitted that, in certain instances, the raids have been. made by forces of the Crown, and he has promised to have the matter very fully and carefully considered. It is obviously a very large matter, and a matter not dealing merely with local authorities in Ireland, but dealing also with England and Scotland, and it is not a matter on which I could, offhand, give the Government's decision on a Bill of this kind. I must refer my hon. and learned Friend to the Chief Secretary for Ireland in respect to that matter, because, even at the moment, it is not quite clear, in a great many of these instances, who are the guilty parties, and it is a matter for very careful investigation. This Bill deals with an entirely different matter, and makes amendments in the law; but the other matter involves quite a new principle, which, so far as I am aware, except in the case of the Dublin Reconstruction Act, where the Imperial Exchequer contributed to losses sustained by citizens, is quite a new subject matter, and is not a matter with which I can be expected to deal in this Third Reading Debate.

Orders of the Day — GOLD AND SILVER (EXPORT, CONTROL, ETC.), BILL

Order read for resuming adjourned Debate on Question [10th November], "That the Bill be now read a Second time.

Question again proposed.

Mr. SAMUEL SAMUEL: I beg to move to leave out the word now, and at the end of the question to add the words "upon this day three months.
I am opposing this Bill on many grounds, but principally because it is a very unsound measure, and because the commercial and financial community wish to get rid of control as soon as they possibly can. This measure intends to perpetuate the control of the export of gold and silver coin and bullion.

The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. Baldwin): It is not to perpetuate, as I explained in my speech,
but it is merely to give power to theGovernment, when it considers it desirable to issue licences.

Mr. SAMUEL: I should like to read what the right hon. Gentleman said. These were his words:
We propose to deal with it in this way: we make use of Section 8 of the Customs and Inland Revenue Act, 1879, and we add the Sub-sections that follow. The Government will then have power, at any time when the situation makes it necessary, to regulate by Order in Council the export of gold and silver bullion, and to make Regulations for controlling such exports as may be permitted by licence. I would call the attention of the House specifically to this point, that it is not making permanent this control of exports, it is only giving power to the Government to effect such a control, and at such a time as that control may be deemed necessary.—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 10th November, 1920; 1321, Vol. 134.]
The Act of 1879, so far as I can make out, is a permanent Act. Therefore, if you include the Act of 1879, it becomes a part of the present Bill.

Mr. BALDWIN: I am sorry to interrupt my hon. Friend and I promise not to do it again, but he refers to Section 8 which is referred to in the first Clause of this Bill to make it clear. Section 8 of the Customs and Inland Revenue Act, 1879, is the governing Clause; it is not quite as my hon. Friend describes.

Mr. SAMUEL: I do not profess to know very much about the law, but it has been pointed out to me, though my right hon. Friend does not intend to make the thing permanent, he will, in perpetuity, have the right by the Bill—when it becomes an Act—to issue Orders in Council at any time whenever he may think fit.

Mr. BALDWIN: That is right.

Mr. SAMUEL: To stop export or to grant export with a licence. That licence is one of the most objectionable incidents that has arisen during the war. We know perfectly well that it means favoritism, that it is a great hindrance to trade, and is very injurious to the export trade of this country. Gold, we all admit, is at present a commodity that is very much lacking in this country, and it would be very inadvisable to export any quantity of gold. But this Regulation, or this Act, makes the position so uncertain that it is perfectly hopeless to look for any improvement in the exchanges if the
matter is to be left entirely in the hands of the Government. There are so many different matters in connection with exchange that you must have a certain amount of liberty. First of all, we do not produce gold in this country. If you are going to put on a permanent prohibition in the matter of export, you naturally prohibit the import, because nobody is going to send gold they produce to this country for sale if they know perfectly well that on arrival in this country that gold is going to be seized by the Government—for it is virtually seized! They lose all control over it. Only certain people under certain conditions will be allowed to export it. The consequence will be that you will stop the inflow of gold into this country the moment the producers of gold know that they or anybody else are not to be allowed a free market in the commodity.
We would not, however, under proper conditions, object so much to control being put upon gold. It would be a very foolish and ill-advised measure, because you will never be able to regulate your exchanges in Western countries and with Europe if you have not a certain amount of freedom in the movement of gold. Exchange does not necessarily mean that you have always got to ship gold in payment for goods from America, Australia, or any other country. But for years and years the banks had been regulating the various exchanges in the different countries without a very great movement in gold. There has always, however, been the liberty in case of emergency to move a small amount of gold in any direction that may be necessary to regulate the position of the exchanges. Any restrictions that the Government place upon that eventually will necessarily tend to put the exchanges against this country in all gold coinage countries. If it had been a temporary measure I should not have opposed it at all. What I do object to is that, as we see it, this is to be a permanent measure.
The same considerations that would induce mc not to oppose gold exports from this country do not weigh in the case of silver. Silver is a purely commercial article. It is not necessarily connected with the finances of this country, and it is very essential for our great interests in the East that there should be freedom in the export of silver to those countries.From time to time
we require a large amount of silver, and we have considerable interests all over the East which will be very greatly hampered by this restriction in the movement of silver and if the Government persist in what I call the prohibition of the export of silver. In various trade activities silver is an article upon which we rely entirely. The silver that is produced in this country is purely a byproduct, and we rely, therefore, on the importation of silver from all parts of the world. We have, too, in the course of our trade, and for the purposes of our commerce, to export silver to all countries, perhaps with the exception of America and Mexico. It is therefore essential that you should have a free inflow into this country of silver, and a free outlet from this country for silver. Our interests in the East are very great indeed. Especially in China, silver forms a great article of commerce. It there often happens that considerable contracts are dependent upon a merchant being able to make advances to the Chinese Government, or some provincial government, to enable him to secure the contracts for material which is to be shipped from this country.
Whilst on this point I have a very serious complaint to make against the Government in connection with this silver question. It perhaps will surprise the House to hear that the Government have been instrumental in, or encouraged, the formation of a syndicate in this country to whom, it is understood, they have given the sole right of financing the Chinese Government. This syndicate has been trying to form a syndicate in China to work with it. The Chinese syndicate is composed almost entirely of Chinese merchants. If this Bill were to be carried through controlling the export of silver, you would have the British Government in the position of supporting a financial group in this country, and at the same time supporting a Chinese commercial group in China, eliminating the whole of the British merchants who are established in China. Some of those firms have been established for 100 years, and all those firms would be denied the assistance of the British Government. It would be impossible, with this control in silver over them, to carry out any large contracts in China, because you would have the syndicate under the direction of the Government, who would have the ear of
the officials, asking the Government to curtail the operations of anybody outside so far as the export of silver to China was concerned. As to the right of the Government to create this monopoly, that is a question for the House of Commons, and I think the Press ought to be able to investigate this matter, and call the attention of the public to it.
9.0 P.M.
To the commercial community it is a very serious matter that a monopoly of this kind should be allowed and encouraged by the Government to eliminate the influence of British merchants and traders in China in favour of Chinese traders. The British traders have created the trade of this country with China, and they have foolishly relied on the assistance of the Government which they have never had. Instead of that they have now the interference of the Government in restricting their business operations, and no assistance from any of the Government Departments in the conduct of their business, or for the purpose of being able to follow the commercial enterprises which are now being thrown into the hands of our foreign competitors. As I understand that the Government are negotiating with a syndicate in America, Japan, and China to work for commercial orders, I want to know whether any arrangements have been made with the Governments of those countries to prohibit the export of silver from those countries to China except through this Chinese syndicate? Unless those countries take the same steps as our Government are taking, we are asking the Chinese to pass all their orders through our competitors instead of giving what the British merchant can command if he is given the assistance of the Government, or if he is given fair play and no favour. That is all they ask. The Government, in including silver in this Bill, is undoubtedly handicapping the British merchants in all parts of the world, especially in the Far East and in China. There is no possible reason for silver being restricted in any way. I hope that this House will insist upon the elimination at least of that part of the Bill which gives power to the Government to prohibit or restrict, except under licence, the export of silver. It is most harmful to our interests, and can do nobody any good. The Secretary to the Treasury said, in speaking the other day, after his
attention had been called to what might probably happen:
If any traders feel themselves aggrieved as to the manner in which the granting of licenses is administered, any complaint to me of their treatment, or anything of that kind, will always he examined and considered with care. I am only too grateful for any cases that may he brought to me in which traders feel that any preferential treatment or anything of that kind, is alleged in any quarter.
I am afraid that the Secretary to the Treasury is rather unsophisticated in finance. Just picture a merchant going to the Secretary to the Treasury and asking the right hon. Gentleman to examine his case because he considers that he has been badly treated in his application for a licence I am afraid he would have very little chance of getting an interview with the Secretary to the Treasury. We all know what is the result of putting questions in this House in connection with any grievance which any of our constituents may have. I know that in 1918 I asked several questions, and one of them was in reference to licences for the exportation of pig iron. The Regulation was that you had to apply a month before for a licence. A firm in the City of London applied on the 1st of December, and for six consecutive months after that, for a licence to export pig iron to the Far East, and every time their application was returned. At the same time they saw month after month from 15,000 to 20,000 tons being shipped to the places they had applied for a licence, but they were never able to get any further than a question in this House, and their application was returned from the Licensing Department. The same thing applies in every direction. As regards the question of silver, which ought to be eliminated from this Bill, there is an enormous importance attached to the freedom of exporting that commodity. The whole commercial dealings in the Far East are based upon silver, and it is absolutely impossible for a firm negotiating cither for imports or exports to be told that they must get a licence first. You get offers for a reply in twenty-four hours, and from our experience of licences we know perfectly well that a licence generally takes two or three weeks before you get any answer to your application. Under these circumstances, the Government are driving trade away from this country if they persist in including silver in this Bill.
So far as Clause 2 of this measure goes, relating to the question of coinage, nobody could have any objection at all to that part of the Bill. Everybody was surprised to hear that it was not already the law that it was a criminal offence to in any way deface the coinage. I recollect not long age there were people imprisoned for melting down the coinage of this country, and it came as a great surprise to me that they were legally correct in doing so. If we are to take the statement of the Secretary to the Treasury, it is very evident that when they were prosecuted and convicted, they were not doing anything wrong.

Mr. BALDWIN: That would be under the Defence of the Realm Act.

Mr. S. SAMUEL: Nobody can have any objection to that part of the Bill. In view of the very grave position the commercial community, as well as the commerce of the country, will be in if silver is included in this Bill, I move that the measure be read a Second time this day three months.

Sir D. MACLEAN: I beg to second the Amendment. The speech which we have just listened to from the hon. Member (Mr. S. Samuel), speaking as he does with a wealth of business experience, indicates to us who have listened to him how very important this measure is, and I regret that, owing to the accident of Parliamentary business, it should come on at a time when so many Members of the House, in consequence of the demands of the inner man, are unable to be present. It is difficult to overestimate the importance of this matter. It is generally admitted that one of the main causes of high prices and the manner in which the exchanges have gone against us in so far as gold standard countries are concerned is the unsound nature of our currency at the present moment, and therefore nothing should be done which will tend in the least degree to retard that movement, which, I am glad to think, has already begun, of the development of the resources and finances of this country to such a position that we may once again get a free market for gold in London, and a bill on London may regain its former ascendancy in the money markets of the world. It is because I believe that the powers given under this Bill as framed will retard that progress that I am
opposed to the Second Reading of the measure.
The proposals which my right hon. Friend indicated in his speech seemed as he left them to be of a quite harmless character. I wish, however, to emphasise what has been said about them by the hon. Member who has just spoken—I agree that no matter what my right hon. Friend has said they are far from being harmless. My right hon. Friend may try to soften or water them down, but I do not hesitate to repeat what has already been said on that point. It is stated that the powers are to be temporary only. What really is sought by this Bill is to carry on the present conditions, for fear that the Peace Treaties should be ratified and the Treasury find itself without the power to deal with the difficult question which it now possesses. What fear is there that during the next few months the Peace Treaties will be ratified 2 There is not the remotest chance of that for months to come, and yet the Government are seeking to take advantage of the present position to get put on the Statute Book an Act which is essentially permanent in its character! The powers sought are very wide. If at any time the Treasury think it necessary they can, by Order in Council, clothe themselves with authority to at once restrict exports of gold and silver except under licences issued by them. How can a business man go about his manifold world wide activities with this thing hanging over his head all the time? My right hon. Friend said he was quite sure that the powers would be exercised always with great care and that all applications would be fairly considered. He also said that if anybody complains of preferential treatment, he himself will certainly see that justice is done. As far as my right hon. Friend is concerned, I am sure no man would go further or do more to fully implement that undertaking, but he is not always going to be at the Treasury. I shall be very sorry, indeed, when he leaves there. Still there is not the slightest use depending on personal assurances in matters of this kind. You must be certain, when carrying out legislation, that the machinery with which it is going to be carried out shall suffer no change in heart before you entrust it with the powers you desire to give it.
We have had remarkable experience of what licences are and how they work during the War. If you want a real exhibition of unmitigated fury from a man in business you have only to talk to him about licences and how they are obtained. You could not have a more unfortunate method of dealing with a business most sensitive to all happenings in the world than the chance that somebody in the Treasury may suddenly make an Order in Council which at once puts an embargo on the whole business and starts this wretched licensing once again. It may or may not be at the present moment necessary. I am not emphasising that point. I suppose that at the present moment it is necessary for gold. I do not deny that for a moment. But why not limit the operation of this Bill to six months—till the end of next June? That is as far as I think the House should go in giving the powers which the Treasury seeks, and then if such powers are still! wanted the Treasury can come to the House again. We shall by that time know what the world position is, and I am quite sure the Government will find no vexatious opposition on a matter of this kind, but a very earnest desire to do all we can to assist the business community and the Government to get a free market in gold once again. I would most strongly urge that upon my right hon. Friend Once Acts get on the Statute Book in a permanent form, no matter how good or benevolent the intention may be, there they stand, and it is extraordinarily difficult to get them off again. I urge upon my right hon. Friend, with all the influence that I may possess, that he should accept in Committee an Amendment limiting the operation of this measure to the 30th June, 1921. That will give him ample time to come to the House again for fresh powers. I am certain that it is a subject which is well worthy of the most careful consideration, especially after what happened recently at the Brussels Conference, where 39 nations were represented. They came to the unanimous conclusion that one of the most desirable things that could happen was the restoration of the gold standard, and if a measure of this kind goes in this permanent form on to our Statute Book they will regard it as a most reactionary and backward measure, giving them a lead in a totally wrong direction. The lead of this country in financial matters is looked upon as one
of real authority, and I am convinced that if one of the first fruits of our Treasury's consideration of this great conference at Brussels appears to be this restriction in the export of gold and silver, they will be very much disappointed at the action of His Majesty's Government. I should like to ask my right hon. Friend one other question, and I ask it without any knowledge. I should have liked to consult others on the matter, but have not been able to do so. Has he taken an opportunity of discussing this with the bankers?

Mr. BALDWIN: The bankers of the City of London are unanimous in their desire for this Bill. It has been examined by them and approved by them.

Mr. S. SAMUEL: What bankers?

Mr. BALDWIN: All the leading banks.

Mr. SAMUEL: Oh no.

Sir D. MACLEAN: I take my right hon. Friend's answer. I would now draw his attention to another rather minor point, namely, Sub-section (3) of Clause 1. There used to be, and is still, a large export trade in jewels. I suppose that the result of the passage of that Subsection as it stands will be that no jewellery can be exported without careful examination to see to what extent it contains gold or silver, or, in the words of the Bill,
Gold or silver partly manufactured and any mixture or alloy containing gold or silver.
I presume that that is a necessary part of the Bill, but I do not know what Birmingham will think of this proposal of one of its most distinguished Members. I suppose it has been carefully thought out, but I certainly hope that, if this measure is to go upon the Statute Book, it will be as what I understand my right hon. Friend really intends, namely, a temporary measure. If that is so, make it so. I repeat that this House will at all times be most ready, when a case is duly made out, to give what assistance His Majesty's Government and the business community require to meet and successfully to overcome financial crises as they arise.

Mr. BIGLAND: My hon. Friend the Member for Putney (Mr. Samuel) put many points before the House with regard to the difficulties that will arise if this
Bill becomes law. I am pleased that the matter has been discussed in such a businesslike and open way, and I should like to support one or two of the points that have been raised by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Peebles (Sir D. Maclean). I agree that according to the ordinary reading of this Bill, while it is not permanent, it will be almost impossible to get it rescinded if we once pass it into law. Therefore, I would appeal to my right hon. Friend the Financial Secretary to give us, on behalf of the Government, a promise of a definite time limit with regard to it. I think that the date suggested, namely, 30th June, is, perhaps, rather short, but at the same time it is better to have a date than to leave it open. All of us who have studied the gold question, the export of gold and the gold currency of this country, must admit that at the moment we see no possibility of restoring free trade in gold. It would be unthinkable if any country in the world that had a balance against us had the right to present bank notes to the Bank of England for an unlimited amount and to ship that gold abroad. Our gold reserves would fall to such a point that the consequent enfeeblement of the banking power of this country would be a national danger. Therefore, I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Putney that there is a reason why the Government should introduce a Bill temporarily controlling the export of gold.
The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Peebles mentioned what has transpired at Brussels, and the devout hope that the gold standard may be once more aimed at and legislated for. I would suggest to the Secretary to the Treasury whether it would be possible for him to organise in the British Empire a federal banking system such as they have in the United States. I am informed by those who have studied this question deeply that the amount of gold now in the British Empire, while insufficient to restore the gold standard, would, under the federal system of banking, enable us to re-issue on a basis which would be absolutely safe for depositors and for the banking world. Under the American federal banking system the percentage of gold actually lodged is greatly widened, under the system of mutual guarantee of bank with bank. If we had a federal banking system between London and Montreal, and
Cape Town, and Sydney, and other parts of the Empire, we should so strengthen our reserves that the actual amount of gold in London or one of the other subsidiary banking centres would enable us much more quickly to get back to the gold standard. We admit, however, now that D.O.R.A. is passing away, that a Bill must be passed in this House to enable the Government to have some control over gold. We most strongly object to the word silver being included in this Bill. The reason why I object is almost a reducto ad absurdum, because only a few weeks ago the Chancellor of the Exchequer, speaking here, said that silver was only a token in this country, and no longer possessed any monetary value whatever; it might as well be tin, or any other metal. If silver has no monetary value whatever, and is only a token, and as we have passed a Bill giving power to the Mint to reduce the purity of silver in the British coinage by a half, is it not ridiculous and absurd to bring in a Bill prohibiting the export of silver? We shall be no poorer if all the silver goes out of the country; we shall use these base coins which are now in the Mint—I have not seen them, but I believe they are already stamped and ready for issue. What is the difference to the Treasury, therefore, if silver does become an article of free export? The hon. Member for Putney pointed out the great danger of having silver a controlled article, because there is a uncertainty in the mind of every man making a contract with the Eastern parts of the world if he is not a free agent in regard to the question of silver. I trust that the Treasury will take most earnest thought and care so that the business of the British merchant is not impeded in this direction. The House was at a loss to understand why the British Government were backing some syndicate in this country which was working in China. If I understood aright, it is working not with a syndicate of British merchants, but with a syndicate of Chinese merchants in China, absolutely putting out of action the old Chinese houses which have worked for 100 years in building up trade. If what is necessary in the way of the building of railways, the putting up of factories or other work in China is to be practically forced into the hands of this syndicate, then we have a right to demand from my right hon. Friend some
explanation of the action of the Treasury in supporting it. While I am not a free trader, I am a man who believes in control for revenue purposes; but there is no revenue to be obtained by this prohibition or control. So far as my business judgment goes, this Bill is necessary for the control of the export of gold; it is absolutely unnecessary for the control of the export of silver.
I should like to strengthen what the right hon. Member for Peebles said in regard to Sub-section (3) of Clause 1. It passes my comprehension why every man who makes jewellery, whether silver or gold, or any mixture or alloy containing gold or silver, must go to the Government for a licence to export that jewellery or silver, or whatever it be which may contain some of these metals. That is a great loss of time and inconvenience, especially if the manufacturer has made quotations and has issued beautifully got-up circulars and price lists all over the world, as is the custom with these great business houses. From a business point of view it is insufferable, and it is contrary to all our British ideas of reasonable control. I agree that all control should be brought to a conclusion as rapidly as possible. This Bill will certainly continue control for an indefinite time. I would emphasise, most emphatically, the necessity for putting a date in the Bill, and I hope my hon. Friend, who has said that it is a temporary measure, will make it one by inserting the date of termination. If he will do that, and if he will strike out the word silver I will withdraw my opposition. If, however, the Bill goes to a Division as it stands at present I shall certainly refuse to vote for the Second Reading.

Mr. HOLMES: I certainly agree that the control of the exportation of bullion, at any rate as far as gold is concerned, is still necessary. The Financial Secretary to the Treasury told us that the leading banks all want this Bill. I should like him to explain whether it is only now that they want it, or whether they want it as a permanent measure in this country? The Bill may be necessary now to prohibit the exportation of gold, but it is very undesirable to make it a permanent measure on the Statute Book. Although the Bill is not actually a permanent measure, it does appear to be, owing to the way it is worded, and it
will be accepted outside this House as such. It is really suggesting a permanent inconvertible paper currency, and that must have a bad effect on our credit. I would ask the Financial Secretary what steps the Treasury propose to take to restore the gold standard? At the International Financial Conference, recently held at Brussels, a resolution was unanimously adopted by the delegates of 39 nations. The resolution read as follows:
It is highly desirable that the countries which have lapsed from an effective gold standard should return thereto.
That was supported by our own representative at Brussels, and I hope the Financial Secretary will be able to tell us that something is in the minds of the Treasury towards carrying that resolution into effect, so far as this country is concerned. The Financial Secretary explained, when moving the Second Reading of the Bill, that the time—as I think we shall all agree—has not yet come for a free market in gold. He gave us as reasons for the delay the state of the exchanges and the condition of our currency. There is no doubt whatever that our currency has seriously depreciated. Might I ask the House to apply the test of Ricardo? He said:
The price of the gold bullion can never exceed the Mint price unless the currency in which it is paid is depreciated below the value of gold.
The Mint price is £3 17s. 10xd. per oz. of standard fineness, and the present market price of gold is about £5 4s. per oz. The difference between these two prices is approximately the measure of the depreciation of the currency which now exists. That depreciation has taken place because of the excessive issue of inconvertible paper money. At the time of the War our paper money amounted to £44,000,000; to-day it amounts to about £350,000,000. The currency notes are nominally convertible into gold, but, as the export of gold is prohibited, and as the notes are legal tender, there is nothing to be gained by converting them. But the effect of this depreciation of the currency is reflected in the foreign exchanges.
It is true there are many reasons why the foreign exchanges have fluctuated one way or the other. There is the question of imports and exports.
According as a country imports more than it exports', so the exchange goes against it. But that is not the only reason why foreign exchanges are affected. The depreciation of currency has had a considerable effect so for as we are concerned. One of the reasons why the exchange with America is against us is that we have issued more paper money than America has, and one of the reasons on the Continent why the exchange against France, Germany and Italy is in our favour is that we have issued less paper money than those three countries. Then one may always support this contention by saying that the issue of paper money causes a rise in prices, and prices have risen higher in the countries which have issued the most paper money. They have risen higher in Germany, France and Italy than here, for one reason, because they have issued more paper money than we have. In the same way as the rise in prices has not been wholly caused by depreciated currency, so a fall in prices to the pre-War level will not, I admit, be alone accomplished by the restoration of a gold standard. But while the question of imports and exports is of the greatest possible importance in restoring the exchanges, one must have noticed during the past month or two that while our exports were slowly creeping up to our imports as compared with a year or two years ago, and while the invisible exports plus the actual exports nearly enable us at present to balance, yet our position with America, so far as exchange is concerned, has not improved. That must surely be due to another cause except importation and exportation of goods, and I suggest that it is due to this depreciated currency, and if the Financial Secretary wants to assist in putting our exchange right with America, the sooner he gets back to the gold standard the better. I want to take advantage of the Second Reading of the Bill to ask him, in view of the resolution unanimously passed by 39 nations at the Conference at Brussels, what steps the Government has it in mind to take in order to restore to us the gold standard, so that London may remain the monetary centre of the world.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: I support the rejection of the Bill. The necessity of as soon as possible restoring the market for gold in this country has been put very ably by various hon. Mem-
bers, including the hon. Member (Mr. S. Samuel), and although the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Baldwin) has told us that the whole of the leading bankers are in favour of this Bill, I know at least one important banker, whom I have consulted on the matter, who is not in favour of it, and I think the officials at the Treasury have slightly misled him in that respect. I do not think he will find that the bankers of the City are absolutely unanimous, although certain leading ones whom it may be customary for the Treasury officials to confer with, may possibly agree.

Mr. BALDWIN: There is seldom unanimity.

Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: There are some bankers who are not in favour of this Bill, and they give very good reasons for it. It consists of two Clauses. The first refers to the perfectly legitimate trade in bullion which has been carried on for centuries. I believe over a thousand years ago we were the great mart for bullion in London. This Government is wonderful in one respect, and that is in creating new offences. It creates the new offence of exporting bullion, and it mixes up this technical and venal offence with the petty thieves' trick of breaking up the King's coinage and selling it at a profit. The great objection we have to the Bill apart from those in connection with silver given by the hon. Member (Mr. S. Samuel) is that it continues the autocratic control of Government Departments. That is objected to by every business man in the country. With regard to the bullion trade I think the amount of uncertainty is especially objectionable. We are referred to the Customs and Inland Revenue Act, 1879, Section 8. That Section has been misused in very many directions already under War conditions. It refers to the export of arms and gunpowder and similar articles, and here you are putting bullion on the same basis as that and you are able, in time of what some Government official considers an emergency, to prevent legitimate trade in bullion.
The Financial Secretary on the adjourned Debate met one fear I had and told us it was not aimed at crabbing a commercial agreement with Russia. The words he used, however, were just a little ambiguous, and I will quote two lines on what he said.
One or two newspapers in this country which are particularly interested in the settlement of a commercial agreement between this country and Russia have expressed some alarm lost it may be more difficult to make this agreement with Russia if this Regulation in regard to the export of gold were made.
A little further on he said it was not aimed at the agreement. What he meant by one or two newspapers particularly interested in a settlement," I do not know. A certain number of leading newspapers point out the great necessity of the Government allowing British subjects to trade with Russia. But that is not the same thing as being interested in a settlement. I am glad, at any rate, that this is not aimed at the agreement. Is it intended that the Bill can be used to hamper legitimate trade with Russia or any other country, the political colour of which is not tasteful to the present Government? May I point to another example in the last few days—the case of Greece. I entirely agree with what I gather is the Government's attitude on the question, but I see it stated in the papers that the French Government very properly have cut off financial credits to the Greek Government. Can this Bill be used in this way, by a stroke of the pen, to prevent the export of gold, which will hit trade with certain countries? In Greece at present the financial situation is naturally shaky. Greek securities are down, and it may be necessary, in purchasing goods from Greece at present, owing to the high cost of bills of exchange, and the like, to be able to export gold to Greek banks as a sort of starting engine of trade. It may be possible by misusing powers of this sort to penalise British merchants while attempting to penalise some foreign government which is acting contrary to the wishes of the gentlemen who temporarily hold power in this country. That is an example of our objection. We object strongly on this side of the House, and I think we have support on the other side, to the Government having power by a simple Order in Council, a bureaucratic instrument, to be able to put a monkey-wrench into the wheels of trade in this way. Once this Bill is on the Statute Book it will be there for good and all, and the persons who are engaged in the export trade of bullion will always have the uncertainty hanging over them of an Order in Coun-
cil issued for some reason not honestly connected with the exchanges. We have sympathy with the Government's endeavour to deal with the question of the exchange. We do not want to hamper them in regard to that; but there are cases where, if they get the power which this Bill gives, it may be used for extremely objectionable political objects. I should like a further assurance from the Financial Secretary to the Treasury, if he is able to give it, that there is no reason of that sort behind this Bill. Action of an economic nature against any government should be taken by one course only, and that is the League of Nations, and it should not be left to the whim of one or two of His Majesty's Ministers.

Lieut.-Commander HILTON YOUNG: There appears to be no difference of opinion that some measure of this sort is necessary in order to complete the water-tightness of our financial structure in regard to gold at the present time. The question is whether it should be a power taken temporarily or a power taken permanently. I am not able to attain that degree of optimism which is attained by the right hon. Member for Peebles and others as to the period for which such a measure as this will be necessary. The necessity will continue, at any rate, so long as the American exchange continues to be adverse, and that will continue as long as prices in this country continue to be at a different level from prices in America. It will continue so long as inflation continues, and the period during which there will be a measure of inflation is scarcely to be measured by six months or a year. However long it may continue, it surely is not an unreasonable power that the Government should be endowed with under the circumstances. If you assume that the Government which is to exercise this power is always going to act with complete unwisdom, you would be inclined to deny it all other powers, including this. This is a power which it is desirable for the Government to possess. Bitter experience of the last six years has shown how circumstances, violent extraordinary circumstances, may turn up in which the exercise of such a power is necessary. Such circumstances may occur again. Such a power, dormant, no doubt, through long years of a normal state of affairs, is one which might be a
natural and useful weapon in the financial armoury of any Government. Before we give a Second Reading to the Bill it would not be illegitimate, indeed I think it is necessary, to make some inquiry as to the policy of the Government under such powers as are taken in this Bill, not as regards the old gold, but the new gold coming in from South Africa and other places. Are any difficulties to be put in the way of the use of London as the free clearing house and mart for the receipt and re-export of new-gold from South Africa and other places? Obviously, if you put any difficulties in the way it would be idle, because the only result would be that the gold would be bought direct in South Africa, and that might cost London a valuable trade which brings grist to the mill. An expression of something in the nature of the intentions of the Government would be welcome before the Bill is passed.

Major-General Sir N. MOORE: I am afraid that this Bill, instead of encouraging the import of gold, will have the effect of discouraging the import of gold. During the War the Government took very drastic powers, so far as gold was concerned. The whole of the gold from Australia and South Africa was sent to this country and taken possession of by the Government at £3 17s. 10½d. per ounce, notwithstanding the fact that it cost £5 to win. The unfortunate gold producer was in this position, that while the man on a neighbouring plant of copper or tin was probably getting double the pre-War value for his product, the gold-miner, notwithstanding that he had to pay enhanced wages, increased cost for mining timber, explosives, freight, insurance, etc., and notwithstanding that others would have been prepared to pay him £5 or £6 an ounce for his gold, had to sell it to the Government for £3 17s. 10½d. There, was every possibility of our gold production, which stood at £58,000,000. being increased. It was increasing very rapidly, but the Committee of gold producers, on which I had the honour to serve, pointed out to the Government that there was a possibility that unless some encouragement was given to the gold producers in the way of bonus, within the next year the gold production would drop from £58,000,000 to £51,000,000. That prophecy proved to be correct. If the Government had accepted the offer that was then made the whole of the gold
produced in the British Empire would have been handed over to the Government at an increase of 12s. 6d., with the result that they would have had that gold for 10 years. At the present time, if they had accepted that offer, the exchanges between America and this country would have been very different, and the Government would have been making £7,000,000 or £8,000,000 per annum as a result.
However, the Treasury Committee, presided over by Lord Inchcape, recommended otherwise, and stated that the alternative was to go and prospect for new gold mines. Anyone who knows anything about gold, and what a difficult proposition it is to open up and develop mines at the present time, must realise that it would pay much better when you have a shaft down, if it was giving five pennyweights, if 12s. 6d. would allow you to take in another ounce and any other overhead charges: but you say that yon should endeavour to prospect for new mines and to open up and develop new mining townships, with the additional cost of transport, civil government, and all the necessary adjuncts of a mining community, one must realise the unwisdom of that recommendation. I was interested to learn from the Financial Secretary that the various banking authorities are in favour of this Bill. I could quite understand the Bank of England, but I was not aware that the other banks viewed this measure with any degree of confidence. I object to this sort of legislation. I could only support it if the Government is prepared to put in a Clause which would allow a licence for re-export to be granted in respect of the gold which is being imported. Otherwise, what encouragement is there to bring the gold here, and to make London the gold market of the world? They will sell it direct in South Africa or any other place. Australia at present is sending most of her gold to China, India, and other places. South Africa is sending a lot of her gold to America. What we have got to do is to encourage gold to come here and then let it take its chance as to whether it gets away again. As regards new gold you must give a licence to export it or you will not get it here. It has been pointed out to me by people who know something about this game that this Bill would be instrumental in setting back the exchange so far as South Africa is concerned. The Government should make
every possible inquiry before committing themselves to this measure.

10.0 P.M.

Major BARNES: It is a matter of surprise to learn from the Financial Secretary to the Treasury that the great bankers of this country are prepared to give to all Governments for all time the power under Order in Council to interfere with the export of gold. That, certainly, is very different from what would be generally done by people who have control of any commodity. There seems to be general agreement that something has got to be done to meet the present emergency with regard to gold. Our complaint is that the necessary powers might have been taken under some temporary measure. That has been done in respect to a great many powers which the Government have sought to continue beyond the period of the termination of the War. We have the Expiring Laws Continuance Bill, which will continue for the year a number of powers under the Defence of the Realm Act. It would have been a simple thing for the Government to get all the powers they wanted with regard to gold in such a measure and not have made them a part of the permanent law of the country. The speech of the hon. Member for Putney is one which needs some reply. There is general agreement with regard to gold, but nothing has been said by any supporter of the Bill in favour of including silver and silver bullion in the Bill, as they have no relation to the currency of the country. The hon. Member objected to the provisions of the Bill with regard to licences, that licences lead to favouritism. That is a strong statement, but it is made from experience by many Members of the House. The hon. Member went on to say that the Government of this country have encouraged the formation of syndicates and are endeavouring to direct trade of this country with China into the hands of a syndicate of this country which is in correspondence with the Chinese syndicate in China. When you put those things together, you have the substance of a very serious statement of which the Financial Secretary to the Treasury is bound to take notice. I have read his speech carefully.It deals almost entirely with gold, as to which there is very little controversy, but nothing was said about silver or silver bullion. Then there
was some statement with regard to Subsection (3) of Section 1. Why not only gold and silver bullion, but also gold or silver partly manufactured? Has the Financial Secretary to the Treasury consulted the manufacturers of Birmingham? Are they as enthusiastic for this part of the Section as the bankers of London are for the rest? Under this Section no article of jewellery can be exported, and you are going to have a considerable multiplication of officials and a great increase of expense at the ports. If this Bill had been a temporary Bill, there would have been no objection; but if we are not met on this point, very probably we shall go to a Division.

Mr. BALDWIN: I have no complaint to make of the speeches which have been made on this Bill. It is a Bill which deserves examination, which I expected would be subjected to examination, and I think that the criticism which has been made on it has been perfectly fair and reasonable. I will try to explain—I may not be successful—as briefly as I can why we adhere to the terms of the Bill as it stands now. In the first place exception has been taken to the Bill being of a permanent nature. If I may say so, the Bill confers a permanent dormant power, and I could not help being pleas 2d to hear my hon. Friend the Member for Norwich because he appreciated the point which is so present in the minds of the Government, that we consider these powers essential for the financial armoury of the country, and from that point of view we are anxious, and the bankers as trustee of the gold supplies of this country are anxious, too, to see this made part of the permanent financial equipment of the country. That does not in the least mean, if I may repeat what I said when introducing this Bill, that we do not desire as much as anyone else to see once more in London the free market for which it has been renowned for so 'many years. But I quite agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Norwich that even if my hon. Friend opposite (Major Barnes) were sitting on this Bench, and wish to bring in a temporary Bill to give effect to our desires, as far as Regulation goes he would always be faced with the difficulty of the time timit, and I believe it is impossible to-day to put any time limit on it. My right hon. Friend the Member for Peebles
made a complaint that we still have in his view some months before us before it might be necessary to legislate, and that at the expiration of that time all need for legislation might have disappeared. But he forgot for a moment that the powers under which the prohibition exists to-day come to an end with the ratification of the last Peace Treaty, and we are all hopeful that that ratification may take place at an early date. If we were to rely on the ratification of the last Peace Treaty being postponed for some months, I think and believe we should be disappointed.
Complaint has been made—it is a common complaint in measures of this kind—that too much power is put into the hands of the Treasury, or, translated in terms used so often by Members of this House, into the hands of the bureaucrats. I would remind the House that, after all, the Treasury means the Chancellor of the Exchequer. The Chancellor of the Exchequer is a Member of the Cabinet, and more than that, he is a great officer in this House, who is always here to be shied at, and not only here for that purpose, but is very accessible in his office to complaints from the commercial or banking community. There is no Minister who, from the very nature of his duties, is in closer touch with the financial and commercial community, and if he takes any step which they think unwarranted or foolish, he hears of it very soon. I am sure the House realises that it would be quite impossible for the Chancellor of the Exchequer to put into force legislation of this kind if there were no need for it. If he did so, the opposition would be so great that we would have to yield. I do not believe there is the slightest risk in that connection. As to the subjects included in the Bill, I am very glad to find there is a consensus of opinion that for the present the export restrictions on gold must be maintained, but I was surprised to hear the remarks that fell from the hon. Member for Putney (Mr. S. Samuel) and others with regard to silver.
Let me say at once that with regard to silver the position is entirely different from that with regard to gold. I am quite hopeful that when the time comes to frame the Orders in Council it will not be necessary to include any regulations against the export of silver bullion, but I wish to point out that the position of the silver coinage to-day is different, and that
there is or may be a real risk with regard to silver coinage when, as hon. Members know, a new coinage of a different fineness is being introduced into this country. Unrestricted export at the moment might easily lead to a drainage of the more valuable coin, and might leave us with a shortage that would be dangerous to our silver coinage. That, of course, does not apply to bullion. From the outlook to-day, I am quite hopeful that it may not be necessary to put into effect the powers given to us in this Bill with regard to silver bullion, but with silver as with gold, we feel that, although the importance of it is far less great, the two metals should be included together in the Bill. We are far from entering yet into a settled condition of monetary affairs, and in times like these we believe it to be necessary to have the two-fold power, although it seems very unlikely that one of those powers will have to be exercised.
I must say a word or two about bullion manufacture. It is very difficult to put into a Bill words that will cover exactly what you want. I may tell my hon. Friend (Major Barnes) that these, words give effect, as nearly as we can, to what is the effect of the existing Regulations. There will be no difference in the future administration from the administration which has existed during the time that the present Orders in Council have been in force, so that the trade—I am the last man in the House to interfere, with any pleasure, with the ordinary course of trade—are perfectly familiar with the conditions under which they work. The reason why the manufactured article is to be taken into consideration is that if you did not do so, and merely had a prohibition in the case of bullion, nothing would be easier than to get the bullion converted, at comparatively small expense, into sheets or some other form like that, which might be called manufactured, and then it could be exported without difficulty. The Board of Trade are in control of these Regulations, and the trade at all times can consult the Board of Trade as to the working of the restrictions. It is only fair to say that complaints have not reached my office on this matter. When the Committee stage of the Bill is reached I have no doubt that, if there be any cases where hardship is felt, the people concerned will make themselves verbal in this House.
I do not know whether the hon. Member for Central Hull (Lieut.-Commander Kenworthy) expects me to say anything in addition to what I said the other day. The reason I said what I did is that I happened to notice a paragraph on this Bill in the Manchester Guardian. It had not occurred to me until I saw that paragraph that anyone could have supposed there was any connection between the introduction of this Bill and the resumption of trade with Russia. This Bill merely continues a state of things which came into being before M. Krassin had ever been heard of. Nothing in this Bill in any way shuts the door to any arrangement that may be come to, either for trading with that country or dealing with any other country. Under the Bill every country stands on exactly the same footing. There is no prejudice against any country, and there is no favour shown to any country. With regard to the point which has been pressed by the hon. Member for Norwich and the hon. Member for Islington North (Sir N. Moore), it is one which has been present to the mind of the Government.
It is common knowledge to those familar with this matter that an arrangement has been in force for some time by which gold from South Africa comes into this country to be refined, and is exported. There is a special system of licence which permits this gold being sent here, and permits its export. I forget the exact terms, but they are, as far as I know, perfectly satisfactory to the South African Government. I am very pleased to offer the assurance that I will suggest words on the Committee stage which will give statutory power to that arrangement which has been in force for some time. I think that will probably meet what is in the mind of my hon. Friend, and no doubt we shall have an opportunity of referring to it on the Committee stage. I hope my hon. Friend for N.E. Derbyshire (Mr. Holmes) will forgive me if I do not accept his very tempting offer to make a long speech on the subject of currency. May I say my endeavour will be to do what I can in the direction of improving our currency by reducing our expenditure. That is, I think, the surest and swiftest method to give effect to what he desires. What success I may achieve in that direction perhaps can hardly be shown at this moment. I hope hon. Members will not
persist in a Division, and will give the Bill a Second Reading.

Bill committed to a Committee of the WholeHouseforTo-morrow.—[Mr. Baldwin.]

Orders of the Day — ISLE OF MAN (CUSTOMS) BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."

Sir D. MACLEAN: Perhaps we may have a few words of explanation as to the object of this Bill.

Mr. BALDWIN: For some years this Bill has been pressed sub silentio, but I am only too pleased to respond to the request for an explanation. The Bill is introduced every year, and it is necessary to pass it within six months or, if the House is sitting, before the House rises at the end of that period, after the Tynwald in the Isle of Man has passed various customs duties for the ensuing year. We have no power to interfere, as the House is possibly aware, with the customs of the Isle of Man. Our function is to ratify what the Tynwald has done, and Statutory force is then given to these duties in the Isle of Man by the very fact of the Act that we pass. I have never dared to contemplate what might happen if we refused to pass this Act; there would undoubtedly be a constitutional crisis of the first water, and I very much trust that to-night I shall not be placed in that most undesirable predicament.

Orders of the Day — PUBLIC WORKS LOANS BILL.

Order for Second Reading read.

Mr. BALDWIN: I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time.
This is another Bill which it has been my lot for some years past to bring up annually and present to the House of Commons. A word or two of explanation, I think, may be necessary. The Public Works Loans Commissioners, who examine applications for loans and re commend to whom the loans should be granted, are appointed and re-appointed for five years, and this year another period of five years begins, and we have, according to custom, to insert the names of the existing Commissioners in the first Clause of our Bill. The names in this first Clause are those of the gentlemen who perform these functions. I need hardly remind the House, perhaps, of the care which they give to this work; it is very responsible, onerous work, for which they get no remuneration of any kind. The other point in this Bill is to name the amount beyond which in the aggregate loans shall not be granted until the next Public Works Loans Bill is brought in. It is not always an easy matter to settle this amount, and the policy of the Government is always to name in the Bill as small a figure as hey believe will serve the purpose. Last year the amount inserted in the Bill was the same as the figure we insert this year, £40,000,000. It does not at all follow that the whole amount will be allotted. Indeed, up to the present date, speaking from memory, the amount which has been allotted out of last year's Act is roughly about £12,000,000 out of a total of £10,000,000. The reason why the amount last year and the amount this year, is substantially larger than it has been for some years is that it is to this fund that the smaller housing authorities look to obtain their loans. I am in hopes that the figure we have inserted here will carry us on until the next Public Works Loans Bill is due to be brought forward, and I can assure the House I have looked into these figures very closely, and I have cut them down to what I believe to be a minimum figure. I hope with that explanation the House will be willing to give me the Second Reading of this Bill to-night.

Question, That the Bill be now read a Second time, put, and agreed-to.

Orders of the Day — PUBLIC WORKS LOANS [REMISSION OF DEBTS].

Considered in Committee.

[Colonel GIBBS in the Chair.]

Mr. BALDWIN: I beg to move, That it is expedient to authorise the remission of arrears of principal and interest due to the Public Works Loan Commissioners in respect of Eyemouth Harbour in pursuance of any Act of the present Session relating to Local Loans.
This again is an Annual Resolution which has to be moved, and which is fully explained in Clause 4 of the Bill. The Public Works Loans Bill always specifies and introduces in scattered form any remissions that have to be made, and this particular remission in respect to Eyemouth Harbour, where the expenses are not met by the herring brand fees, has to be sanctioned by a Financial Resolution, which should be passed before the Committee stage of the Bill.

Resolution to be Reported To-morrow.

Orders of the Day — MEMBERS' EXPENSES (SELECT COMMITTEE).

Ordered, That Major Breese and Mr. McGuffin be added to the Committee.—[Colonel Gibbs.]

Orders of the Day — BILLS INVOLVING CHARGES (PROCEDURE).

Ordered, That a Select Committee be appointed to consider the procedure governing Bills, whether public or private, involving charges, actual or potential, upon the rates; and to report what improvements can be made in it with a view to securing greater control of the expenditure of public moneys.

Sir Frederick Banbury, Sir Cyril Cobb, Sir William Howell Davies, Mr. Grundy, Mr. Frederick Hall, Mr. Holmes, Sir Donald Maclean, Sir William Middle-brook, Colonel Sir Henry Norris, Mr. Waddington, Lieutenant - Colonel Sir Alfred Warren, Mr. J. W. Wilson, Mr. Tyson Wilson, Mr. Edward Wood, and Lieutenant-Commander Hilton Young nominated members of the Committee.

Ordered, That the Committee have power to send for persons, papers, and records.

Ordered, That Five be the quorum.—[Colonel Gibbs.]

The remaining Government Orders were read, and postponed.

Orders of the Day — IRELAND.

ULSTER VOLUNTEERS.

Whereupon Mr. SPEAKER, pursuant to the Order of the House of 19th October, proposed the Question, That this House do now adjourn.

Mr. DEVLIN: I rise for the purpose of calling attention to the most unsatisfactory answers to questions which have been addressed to the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland in relation to some very vital and important matters that are occurring in Ulster. I should like at this stage to complain, and to complain bitterly, of the method the right hon. Gentleman adopts in dealing with Irish questions. If there are any incidents occurring 12 or 14 hours before the House meets the right Hon. Gentleman can always arrange for questions to be asked about them by one of his followers in the House, and if he has an answer that is detrimental to Irish Nationalist feeling he is prompt and ready to answer the question. He seems to be fully informed of all the facts and circumstances, and he can dilate with almost dramatic power upon the incidents which have only occurred a few. hours before. But when questions are put from this side of the House it is impossible to get an answer from the right hon. Gentleman, and, as some of these matters are of the most vital concern to the people whom I represent, both Nationalists and Catholics of Ulster, I take advantage of this opportunity to call attention to them. On 17th November my hon. Friend the Member for South Armagh (Mr. Donnelly) asked the following question:
To ask the Chief Secretary whether his attention has been called to the condition of affairs existing in many districts in the County Armagh; whether he is aware that in these districts armed Unionists are in the practice of waylaying Catholics and searching them along the roads in the rural areas; whether some time ago a young man
named Hughes was stopped by a gang of Unionists armed with rifles and revolvers and searched; whether a few nights afterwards a young man named Devlin was stopped and searched by a crowd of 12 men armed; whether another man named Donnelly was stopped and searched and £3 10s. taken from him; whether on the night of the 1st November, a number of men coming from a concert in the City Hall, Armagh, were held up at different spots by armed Unionists and searched; whether he is aware that these things are taking place in a countryside which has hitherto been quiet and peaceable; whether this conduct of armed Unionists has received official sanction; and whether he will take steps to put an end to this conduct, which can only lead to the disturbance of the peace in these districts.
The Chief Secretary asked that that question should be postponed in order that he might have an opportunity of making inquiries. The question was on the Paper, I think, for two days. I take it the right hon. Gentleman has made inquiries, but from that day until now there has not been a single explanation given. I put down a question to-day, after an interval of a fortnight, calling the right hon. Gentleman's attention to the reign of terror which wras springing up in several districts in the North of Ireland, and asking whether the Ulster Volunteers for several weeks past have been holding up pedestrians and motor cars, and whether on the night of Wednesday, the 24th inst., at Killylea, County Armagh, a military patrol was stopped and ordered to put up its hands, and on inquiry the military officer was told they were Ulster volunteers, with orders to hold up all road traffic, and whether the officer arrested the volunteers and subsequently released them, and what action the right hon. Gentleman proposes to take in the matter?
In the time from which the first question was put down by my hon. Friend until my question was put down one would have expected that the right hon. Gentleman would have conceived it to be his duty to inquire into these allegations which have been made, and that he would have been able to give some answer to the question I put to him to-day in the House. The answer was;
I have called for a further report.
Continuing, the right hon. Gentleman said:
With regard to the incidents referred to by my hon. Friend, I am informed that at
11.45 on 24th inst. a military officer and 20 other ranks, with two Royal Irish constables, left Armagh for Killylea in a motor lorry, and near Killylea they were halted and ordered to put up their hands by three men described as Ulster Volunteers. The military dismounted and arrested them.
Then the right hon. Gentleman said, I have called for a further report. He continued that he had no evidence of a reign of terror having sprung up in several districts of the North of Ireland; the evidence was that the reign of terror was on the decline in that and other parts of Ireland. He only knew of one or two cases of hold-ups of pedestrians and motors. After listening in this House, for the last two months, to the most harrowing details which the right hon. Gentleman is so ready to recite about attacks on the military in Ireland, one would imagine that he would be ready to give an explanation as to what had been done in this case. I asked if these men held up the lorry. It seems to me very strange that three men can hold up a military lorry containing twenty soldiers and two members of the Irish Constabulary. If that had occurred in Limerick or Cork, those three men would have been instantly shot. This is a fair indication to the House of the character of the feeling of confidence which exists amongst these Ulster Forces of the Crown, if three men could hold up a military lorry in the full knowledge that nothing would be done to them. When I asked if it was true that they were arrested, the right hon. Gentleman said they were. I asked if they were instantly released, and he did not answer.
I want to know what happened to these three men. Were they tried? If they were released I want to know why, and what further steps he proposes to take? The right hon. Gentleman, in this House and on platforms, has held himself up as the model arbiter between all sections in Ireland. He says that he is the one strong man who is going to rule Ireland imparitally, and stamp out disorder and lawlessness. That is the only ground on which he can stand, and yet here he allows bands of Ulster loyalists to parade the public road night after night to attack innocent and law-abiding citizens, and to take upon their own shoulders the duty of law defenders, and they act as officers of the law, and not one of them has been brought to justice.
Innocent women and children can be shot by uniformed men in this way for nothing at all. The Orange allies of the right hon. Gentleman in Ulster can hold up people and tell them to put up their hands. They then hold gentle conversations with the assailants of the military power, take them by the arm and convey them to the prison house and then say to them, Oh, gentlemen, we thought you belonged to Tipperary, or Cork, or Cavan, or we would not have arrested you at all. We were going to charge you with holding up a military lorry and calling upon soldiers of the Crown to put up their hands, but you must now be released, and we do not want you here at all. I never heard of a more disgraceful condition of things. I have been receiving complaints from every part of the North of Ireland that it is becoming impossible for Nationalists and Catholics to go out upon certain roads, because they will be held up by these un-uniformed officers of that part of the North of Ireland, although the Northern Parliament is not yet established. It has now become fashionable for these men to go about with revolvers in Ireland. I understand that about 20 people have been recently arrested for carrying arms, and they have been fined Is. each.
Here is the case of a Nationalist in Belfast named John Crawford who was found guilty of having a revolver and endangering the safety of a police constable, and he was sentenced to penal servitude for 10 years. The accused, who pleaded not guilty, was represented by a solicitor who urged that he was an innocent spectator and called attention to the fact that one constable only identified him. No revolver was found on him. Yet he was found guilty of having a revolver and of endangering the safety of a police constable, and was sent to penal servitude for ten years. Thus John Crawford, a Nationalist, was charged with having a revolver which was not found on him, and he got ten years from a Court-Martial. But I have another case. Arthur Maginnis was charged in Belfast with being in possession of a revolver and with riotous behaviour in Durham Street on the 2nd October. Evidence was given by Sergeant Kelly that he found defendant in a public-house with a revolver in his possession, and the defendant was fined 40s. and costs and ordered to give security for good behaviour. A more monstrous
condition of affairs could not be found in any civilised country. One man gets ten years before a Court-Martial on a charge of having a revolver although none was found on him, and another, on whom a revolver was found, was fined 40s. Ulster Unionists are allowed to perambulate through peaceful agricultural districts, along roads at night, and hold up pedestrians and motor cars. They may even go so far as to hold up the military in lorries, and although they are arrested they are released before they are tried. The House is well aware of what happens to a Nationalist volunteer in the South of Ireland. I have recorded two cases taken from newspapers of the charges of having revolvers. One man, because he is a Nationalist, gets ten years' penal servitude: the other, because he is a Unionist, is only fined 40s.
The right hon. Gentleman in one of his most dramatic perorations told this House not long ago that he was going to rake Ireland from end to end so as to seize the arms of every person carrying arms but not entitled to do so. Has he made the slightest attempt to seize arms in Ulster? If so will he tell the House what is the character of the raking in process, what he has raked in and what results have accrued. These cases give us a clear indication that the right hon. Gentleman may allow lawlessness to prevail in all its hideousness in one part of Ireland and use the power of the military machine to crush lawlessness in the other part of Ireland. Those who stand for order in Ireland demand that if order is upheld and the law defended it must be upheld and defended not in the interests of one class or section only, and that one class of malefactor shall not be patted on the back and encouraged, and the other class pursued with all the rigour and all the severity that the law and administration can carry into effect. These are two typical cases, but I could give bundles of cases, notwithstanding the sneers of erstwhile members of the Labour party—bundles of cases of a similar character, in which the heaviest penalties have been imposed on men for offences in Nationalist districts, while practically nothing has been done to men guilty of similar offences in the North of Ireland. I hope, therefore, that the right hon. Gentleman will give us some explanation with regard to these things. First of all I want to know how it is that when we put questions down
and give him plenty of time to answer he never has the information, while, when hon. Members opposite rise and ask questions about incidents of the day before, the right hon. Gentleman presents the fullest information to the House. How is it that revolver carrying can get off with 40s. and costs in Belfast when the revolver is carried by a Unionist, while a Nationalist charged with carrying a revolver gets 10 years' penal servitude although there was no proof that he had a revolver?
The Ulster Orangemen are not yet in possession of the six-county Parliament; they have not got control of the military machine and the power of administration. There are 300,000 of us in those six counties out of a population of less than 1,000,000. These gentlemen are not yet our masters. Is this the way they intend to induce us to accept their Ulster Parliament? As long as this spirit prevails in Ulster, that Parliament will never be recognised by us. The Government have shown that what they want to do is to hand over the Nationalists of those six counties to the tender mercies of these gentlemen. We know what we will receive from them, and how the Government are encouraging them to carry on their work, by the things which I have ventured to put before the House to-night.

Mr. MOLES: I am not sure whether my hon. Friend opposite is more concerned to attack loyalists because they are loyal, or to attack and abuse and misrepresent the Chief Secretary because he is Chief Secretary and stands on the side of law and order.

Mr. GEORGE ROBERTS: The hon. Gentleman (Mr. Devlin), in the course of his speech, seemed to indicate that there were erstwhile members of the Labour party who sneered at him. It is never my practice in this House to sneer at anyone, and the hon. Member has no right to make that statement. Neither my hon. and gallant Friend nor myself were making any observation with respect to the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. DEVLIN: I am sorry if I misrepresented the right hon. Gentleman.

Mr. MOLES: I do not think my right hon. Friend below me (Mr. Roberts) need worry himself about that. He has been long enough in this House to know that it is part of the hon. Gentleman's
stock-in-trade. When he starts abuse of that kind—and he has served a long apprenticeship in the art—it really means that he has not a decent shot left in his locker. He complains that the Chief Secretary is never ready to answer his questions. Let me ask him to take his mind back to Thursday last. A series of questions were put on Thursday, mostly by my hon. Friend, and he addressed to the Chief Secretary a whole litany, more than 20 of which I counted, of supplementary questions; and he expects that a cross-examination of that kind can be anticipated and provided for in advance.

Mr. DEVLIN: I asked no such question. There was no question down by me yesterday with such a series of interrogations, or any interrogations.

Mr. MOLES: My hon. Friend is somewhat confused. I did not allude to yesterday at all. He is barking up the wrong tree.

Mr. DEVLIN: Nor any day. On a point of Order. The hon. Gentleman is confounding me with someone else. Since he has made the charge, I challenge him to bring before the House this series of interrogations which he says I put. I deny point blank that there were any such questions.

Mr. MOLES: The hon. Gentleman can consult the OFFICIAL REPORT. I do not care two pence about his denials. I am within the recollection of the House.

Mr. DEVLIN: I again rise to a point of Order—

Mr. MOLES: I decline this time to give way.

Mr. DEVLIN: The hon. Gentleman has stated that I put down a question with about fifty others. I said there was not a word of truth in that statement. I have challenged him now to quote the question and he refers me to Hansard. He repeats it after my denial, and I again challenge him—

Mr. SPEAKER: I think the hon. Member for the Falls Division is mistaken. What the hon. Member for Ormeau (Mr. Moles) said was that he (Mr. Devlin) put a number of questions in cross-examination on Thursday last. I think if he will refer to the OFFICIAL REPORT of what occurred last
Thursday he will find that the hon. Member (Mr. Moles) is not very far wrong in his estimate.

Mr. DEVLIN: I think he is very far wrong.

Captain REDMOND: He was entitled to put them.

Mr. MOLES: The House will remember that that was so, Sir, and you will remember that you protested against these supplementary questions. This, however, is all for the purpose of interruption, and I am too well accustomed to the hon. Member's argumentative methods to be put out of my stride by them. He says a reign of terror is springing up over the North. Who is responsible for the reign of terror? Who started it?

Mr. DEVLIN: You did, and Carson.

Mr. MOLES: There is no man in the entire country more guilty than the hon. Gentleman who protested against it. I could remind him of speech after speech which he has made, when he poured vulgar abuse on people who were targets for him, when he poured vitriol into their gaping wounds, and heaped abuse and contumely on men whose boots he is not fit to black; time after time he has spoken, making the position of peaceful people who wish to live together impossible. When he has succeeded in this contemptible task he gets up here, and with an exhibition of hypocrisy which this House has never seen, complains of a reign of terror. Does the hon. Gentleman forget that only recently nearly every large building in Belfast was entered by people who held his political faith. Documents were burned, and the revolvers of the Sinn Feiners were brandished in the face of public officials. Did anybody hear the hon. Gentleman get up in his place in the House and talk then of a reign of terror? There were threats against jurors, who were precluded from going to discharge the public duty to which they were summoned. There were threats against voters in the County of Tyrone, and he knows perfectly well that only the other day legal proceedings taken against the Nationalist party concluded—in which intimidation was proved in 35 cases—and if there had been a few more cases proved the election could have been rendered invalid. He talks about a reign
of terror. Take the case of Killylea. He says that if these men had been in Cork they would have been shot; but if the military lorry had been held up in Cork, the 20 occupants would have been hurried into eternity, as 15 auxiliary officers were hurried into eternity to-day in Cork. Really, it is difficult to be patient with my hon. Friend when one hears this sort of thing. I venture to say he was perfectly cognisant of what happened in Cork to-day, yet he skids away from it with no word of reference. What is the position in Killylea? Not long ago I heard of an attempt made by the hon. Gentleman to address the people near there—

Mr. DEVLIN: I never attempted that in my life. I was never there in my life.

Mr. MOLES: That shows how far the hon. Gentleman is prepared to go. He complained in this House not long ago that he was prevented by the police from addressing a meeting at Caledon. It is just half a mile from the town of Killylea. The hon. Gentleman was on his way to address a public meeting when he was held up. That shows how much he knows about this. The police barracks adjoining had to be evacuated by the police just the same as many other barracks, owing to intimidation. This was on the borders of County Monaghan and Tyrone, about three-quarters of a mile from each, and it is one of the places through which bands of terrorists have been passing to different quarters of the country. It is an area within three miles of which a policeman was captured when he was to have been a witness at the assizes the following day. It adjoins an area in which outrages have been frequent, Burnings have taken place, midnight raids by Sinn Feiners and terrorism generally. There is not a police barracks near the place until you come to Armagh on the one side and Monaghan on the other. The law was paralysed for a period. The police had to be withdrawn, and the citizens were obliged, in consequence, to undertake their own self-defence. They set up a patrol, and I defy the hon. Member, or the hon. Member whose question he quoted, to come forward with one real case that can be conclusively proved of any person hurt in mind, body or estate because of that patrol. On the' contrary, we can quote more than a dozen cases of people on
unholy, unlawful, and improper errands. There is not a more peaceful quarter of the three kingdoms than that area, despite all that has been said to the contrary.
The hon. Member told the House two specific instances which, he said, were typical. He quoted the case of John Crawford, a Nationalist, and he seriously asked the House to believe that John Crawford, brought before a court-martial and defended by competent counsel, was sentenced to ten years for carrying a revolver. I do not know to what extent the credulity of the Labour party will go. Apparently it will go a long way! They have the faith that will remove mountains in this particular matter. I do not complain. It is part of the duty they owe to these other hon. Gentlemen because of the alliance between them. John Crawford received no ten years' penal servitude for carrying a revolver. The hon. Member omitted this all-important detail—whether purposely or not I do not know. I really think he does not know. If you want to know things about Belfast, I do not believe you can go to a more untrustworthy source in this House

Mr. DEVLIN: That is why they have returned me.

11.0 P.M.

Mr. MOLES: When my right hon. Friend comes to deal with this case he will tell you that John Crawford received his ten years' penal servitude for an attempt to murder a policeman, which is a somewhat different thing, when you come to think about it, from carrying a revolver. Even if the hon. Member had been on the court-martial, he could not, if he had any sense of justice whatever, have escaped imposing a penalty of this kind. Then he quoted the case of Arthur Macginnis. Macginnis was standing at a public-house bar. I am quoting what transpired at the court-martial. He appears to have confided to a Nationalist friend standing by that he had a revolver, and his Nationalist friend, after his kind, walked out, played the role of informer to a policeman, the policeman came in, got the revolver, Macginnis was dealt with, paid his 40s., and did not go on hunger strike. The hon. Member and I know each other pretty well. He would not. exchange his citizenship of Belfast for any other
city in the three kingdoms, no matter what he states to the contrary. He has no real belief that he or any other human being who holds his political or religious opinions is in peril of his life in Belfast. Every loyal law abiding man is safe; he is just as safe in Belfast, and so am I, as in this House. When he asks the House to believe that he is standing in peril, either of his life or of his property, he really in his heart of hearts does not believe one word of it, and I hope the House does not believe it.

The CHIEF SECRETARY for IRELAND (Colonel Sir Hamar Greenwood): rose—

Mr. SEDDON: Before the right hon. Gentleman replies, may I say that many of us are horrified by the news that has appeared in the Press? Can he give us any information whether it is correct that 15 men have been ambushed and murdered in Cork during the last 48 hours?

Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: Will he also tell us about the burnings over the week-end?

Mr. ADAMSON: I am certain that every hon. Member is horrified to hear of the tragic event that has happened in Ireland to-day. One cannot but sympathise with the victims of the tragic events which are happening from day to day, and for which evidently both sides are responsible.

Sir H. GREENWOOD: No.

Mr. ADAMSON: Tragic events are happening in Ireland for which both sides are blameable.

Mr. MOLES: Does the hon. Member suggest that there is justification for lying in wait to murder fifteen men?

Mr. DEVLIN: You inspired murders in your papers; you miserable wretch. You inspired attacks on Catholics in your papers. You are responsible for all the misery.

Mr. MOLES: That is an absolute untruth.

Mr. ADAMSON: The hon. Member knows sufficient of me to know that I have not a word of justification for an act of the kind which has taken place
to-day. I have no intention of leaving any such impression when I say that there are tragic events happening in Ire land for which both sides must carry responsibility—[HON. MEMBERS: No!]—and I hope we are nearing the time when this House and this country will set themselves to effectively remove the causes which I fear lie at the root of these tragic events. I did not rise for the purpose of making general remarks on the condition of affairs in Ireland. I simply want to ask the Chief Secretary if his atteniton has been drawn to a report which has been passed on to me of the raiding and partial destruction of the house and farm of Mr. Edward Lysaght, of County Clare. Mr. Lysaght, as the Chief Secretary is well aware, is a gentleman who takes great interest in co-operative farming in Ireland. He is also chairman of one of the publishing firms in Dublin, and was a member of the Convention nominated by the Government. Mr. Lysaght is also well known for his writings. He belongs, so far as the information which has been passed on to me goes, to no political society or club, and the only thing that can he said against him is that he is a member of an Irish speaking society, and that he has written a letter, which appears in some of the newspapers, which pointed out that one of the three men who were shot the other day in Dublic Castle, namely, Conor Cloone, had come to Dublin on a purely business mission, and being, accompanied on his journey to Dublin by Mr. Lysaght himself. These are the only things, as far as I know, that can be said against Mr. Lysaght; and I would like the Chief Secretary to let us know if his attention has been called to it, because it seems a peculiar proceeding to have taken place in connection with a man who holds the record of this one, and I thought that I would avail myself of the opportunity to ask the Chief Secretary if he had any information to give us on this matter.

Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: When the Chief Secretary is dealing with the tragic and brutal affair in Cork, perhaps he will also give us some information about the burning in Cork of a millinery store with damage done to the extent of £15,000, the burning of a club-house, and a number of dwelling-houses and shops, it is alleged by Forces of the Crown?

Sir H. GREENWOOD: I can add nothing to what I said to-day as to the burnings in Cork. I can give no answer at all in reference to the alleged burning of Mr. Lysaght's place. I hope that the House, will realise the difficulty which officers of the Irish Government have in securing detailed information as expeditiously as hon. and right hon. Members would like. Every man in Ireland who secures this information secures it as a rule in a remote area, and he goes in hourly danger of his life. Wires are cut, and are kept cut sometimes for twenty-four hours. Communication is often difficult and immediately an outrage takes place it is quite impossible to ask military or police officers to give up their chief duty—that of tracking the murderers and protecting their own lives—to find out what is important at ordinary times, but is unimportant in the present condition of Ireland, namely, if some man's home has been burned, or some man's property has been destroyed. I take the stand, as I always, have, that the prevention of murder is my primary duty. The destruction of property cannot be compared with the loss of life. Therefore, I insist upon priority always being given to questions involving the life of the individuals, rather than to questions involving property, however great may be the loss.
In reference to the question raised by the hon. Member for the Falls Division I have no further information. The three men described as Ulster Volunteers, who are alleged to have held up a lorry load of military men, if they are guilty, will be punished, for whatever else might be said of my administration of Ireland, I claim that I am trying to be impartial throughout Ireland. To me, neither a man's politics nor his religion has anything to do with the case. If he comes within the meshes of the law, I will do my best to see that he gets justice; if he does not come within the meshes of the law, he has no better Friend than I am. I cannot, offhand, give any further information in reference to Mr. John Crawford, who was sentenced to 10 years' penal servitude for endangering the life of a policeman. That means that he was shooting at a policeman, with the intention of killing him.

Mr. DEVLIN: That was not the charge

Sir H. GREENWOOD: The charge was endangering the life of a policeman. Those were the exact words used by the hon. Member. All these matters which have been raised tonight do not involve human life. I must say that we seem, some of us, to lose a sense of perspective and proportion in dealing with this Irish question. Of course, it is a distressing thing for a man to have his house entered, or to be held up by a patrol, legitimately or otherwise. But let us realise what is now taking place in Ireland. These outrages in Liverpool and attempted outrages in London show that the Sinn Fein murder gang is carrying on its sinister campaign of murder and arson in this country, and, unless this country be roused, that campaign will extend to persons and to property.
This evening I received a telegram which is one of the most distressing telegrams that I have ever read in this House. When I have read it, I will resume my seat. I will do my best to answer questions dealing with individuals and their property, but I must restrict my attention, and must ask my officials—military, police and civilian—to concentrate their energy an I their splendid devotion—there are no better servants of this House than these Irishmen—to the prevention of this murder business, by whomsoever committed. I might explain that the Auxiliary Division in Ireland is composed entirely of ex-officers. Every one is selected because of conspicuous merit and courage shown in the field of battle during the late War. This is the telegram from District Inspector, Macroom, County Cork:
17 Auxiliary Force under D.I. Crake went on a two-lorry patrol at 3.30 p.m. yesterday. They were ambushed near Kilmichael by 70 to 100 men. Fifteen of the Auxiliary Force were killed, one is missing, and one wounded and dying. Their ammunition and arms were taken; their lorries burnt. Ambush is supposed to have been at about 10 p.m. last night. Full details not yet to hand. Bodies are being taken to Macroom.
This telegram came late to-night from the head of the police forces in Ireland, Major-General Tudor:
The ambush consisted of about 80 to 100 men, all dressed in khaki with steel trench
helmets. They fired from both sides of the road, and had also direct enfilade fire straight down the road. By force of numbers some of my poor fellows were disarmed and then brutally murdered. It was brutal murder. The bodies were rifled. All money and valuables were taken, and even articles of clothing were robbed from the corpses.
At the moment there are 15 British officers lying dead, the victims of Irish assassins. I must make one protest. I do not think this House would like to proceed with the discussion about some patrols in Ulster or the destruction of a farmer's house, in face of this challenge to the authority of this House and of civilisation.

Captain REDMOND: There is not, I think, anyone in the House, either on the Government Benches or elsewhere, who would accuse me, or those associated with me, of having other than the deepest and most profound regret for the tragic circum stances recited by the Chief Secretary. As everyone is aware, neither my hon. Friend for the Falls Division (Mr. Devlin) nor myself has ever been associated with what the Chief Secretary has described as the murder gang in Ireland, but it is we, the only surviving representatives of Nationalist Ireland, who had to fight them on their own soil at the last General Election, when we were not assisted by the representatives of the present Government, who did everything in their power otherwise, and so well succeeded in driving us almost out of existence. Murder has never appealed to any patriotic Irishman as a means of attaining his national aims and ambitions. Murder to my mind is a sure path that will lead to the inevitable result of destroying the ambitions and aspirations of the majority of the Irish people. But one has got to view this condition of our country from all points of view. The Government cannot escape its responsibilities in this matter—

Notice taken that 40 Members were not present; House counted and 40 Members not being present,

The House was adjourned at Twenty minutes after Eleven of the Clock till To-morrow.